Editor: Rael Jean Isaac
Editorial Board: Ruth King, Rita Kramer
Outpost is distributed free to Members of Americans for a Safe Israel
Annual membership: $100.
Americans for a Safe Israel
Full Story »
1751 Second Ave. (at 91st Street)
New York, NY 10128
Tel (212) 828-2424 / fax (212) 828-1717
A theological gallery of self-anointed “evangelicals” operating out of the Bethlehem Bible College has launched a frontal assault on Israel’s largest and most dedicated global support group, the estimated 60 million “Christian Zionists” comprising the overwhelming majority of the American Evangelical movement.
“Those who would destroy Israel by the power of the word,” as Olive Tree Mission director Susan Warner tagged them, had their heaviest verbal artillery on display some weeks back at the BBC-hosted fourth biennial “Christ at the Checkpoint” conference. Its theme was dutifully encapsulated for the 600 pastors in attendance in Fullerton Theological Seminary President Mark Labberton’s assertion that “Christians who call themselves Zionists are the enemies of God.” Fullerton has two campuses in California, three in Washington State and one each in Texas and Arizona.
Any further doubt about where Christ at the Checkpoint 2016 was heading should have been put to rest by the scene at the conference’s inaugural portrayed by Christian Zionist Brian Schrauger, a free-lance journalist living in Bethlehem-adjoining Bet Jalla, who has covered these events for the Jerusalem Post and New York-based Jewish Press, among others. (Jews, including Messianic Jews, were barred from attendance.) Following a standing audience rendition of the Palestinian National Anthem, “Guest of Honor” Hanna Amira, member of the Executive Committee of the PLO, launched into a 40-minute rant against Israel highlighted by a charge of “sanctioned acts of unprovoked murder by its army and settlers.” It was received with “not a peep” of protest from the assembled clergy and their higher education representatives, Schrauger reports.
But the real focus of CatC IV wasn’t on the reiteration of its thrice-told tale of Israeli depredations against the Palestinians or, despite a passing reference to ISIS, the conference’s mission statement, “The Gospel in the Face of Religious Extremism,” but on what Schrauger terms a “condemnation of Christians who support the Jewish state…a strategic move against Israel from mainstream Evangelism, at once ingenious and profoundly hypocritical.” Its primary danger, he submits, is in its religious framework, the product of a breathtaking exercise in Biblical revisionism, wherein a Jewish Jesus is magically resurrected as a Palestinian Muslim, along with a virulent Replacement theology we thought Pope John 23 had left for dead. Denied in the process is any contemporary Jewish religious or historical link to Israel (God’s promise to Abraham was allegedly fulfilled with the birth of Jesus) as well as the ethnic authenticity of the entire western Jewish population.
The chief target of this exercise in “Evangelical terrorism” is Christian Zionism’s soft underbelly, its millennial fruit, their teachers and opinion shapers. Receptive to a generational peer temptation to separate themselves from their parents’ most cherished beliefs, Schrauger finds too many of these parents unawakened or in self-denial of the fact that their children, “like dandelion florets floating in the winds, are tottering forward toward an anti-Israel religious world view.” Nothing more pointedly informs CatC 2016 and sets it apart from a 2014 predecessor that proclaimed “I am not for the Palestinians or Israelis…I love everyone,” is that the gloves are finally off. “The 2016 event,” Susan Warner charges, “was organized by Evangelicals with the objective of destroying the Biblical integrity of Evangelicals supporting Israel and their doctrine of Christian Zionism.”
Full Story »
Sylvia Raphael—A Documentary
It’s coming to U.S. movie houses at the end of August. Sylvia—Tracing Blood is a documentary on the life of a remarkable woman, a spy of whom Israeli defense correspondent Eitan Haber says at the end of the film: “I say to all the Jews in Israel, you should go twice a week to the grave of Sylvia and lay flowers for the contribution she has made for future generations.”
Raphael’s story is told in the Jerusalem Post Magazine by journalist David Kaplan, who had delved into Raphael’s life after her death in 2005 and introduced the film at its world premiere in Israel. Born in South Africa to an atheist Jewish father and Calvinist Afrikaner mother, Raphael grew up in South Africa’s Eastern Cape. In the mid-60s she embarked on what was then a not uncommon adventure—going to live on a kibbutz, in her case Kibbutz Gan Shmuel. There the Mossad took notice and recruited her.
Raphael circulated on the European cocktail circuit, making anti-Semitic comments, and was eventually admitted into the inner sanctums of the Arab world, even babysitting Jordan’s current ruler, King Abdullah II. In her double life she circulated from Cairo to Damascus to Mogadishu. She took up the role of spy in Syria after master spy Eli Cohen was uncovered and slain. She was in Egypt in June 1967 watching Israeli mirages swoop down from her hotel balcony.
In 1973 Raphael joined a team of Mossad agents to track down Ali Hassan Salameh, suspected mastermind of the Munich massacre of Israeli athletes. The team disastrously killed a Moroccan waiter in Norway instead. While Raphael languished in prison, her brother David joined Kibbutz Ramat Hakovesh as a volunteer. When he eventually revealed Sylvia was his sister, the kibbutz decided to “adopt” her and when she was released Raphael, who became a teacher in Tel Aviv, would visit the kibbutz on weekends with her Norwegian boyfriend, then husband. The couple returned to Norway for a few years, then moved to Pretoria.
Ironically the Mossad’s mistake would be echoed by the terrorist opposition. In 1985 a splinter group of the PLO murdered three Israelis on a yacht off the Cyprus coast, mistakenly claiming they had slain Mossad agents, including Sylvia Raphael. In fact Sylvia would live another 20 years, dying of leukemia at the age of 67. She was buried at Kibbutz Ramat Hakovesh, with her words inscribed on the headstone: “I want to be buried in the soil of my soul.”
Dermer on Capitalism
In 1990 Michael Novak made waves with The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, arguing that capitalism, not socialism, promoted social justice and ethical values. Now Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer has joined the ranks of those who champion capitalism in moral terms, saying in a speech at Penn’s Wharton School (of which he is an alumnus): “I don’t know another system that has done more good for more people.’
Israel is a case in point, with Israel’s current economic and business success the result of getting rid of its earlier socialist system. Dermer notes that even 20 years ago, when he came to Israel, he was startled to discover capitalism was considered a dirty word. Yet, says Dermer, “one thing I know for sure—socialism stifles genius.” For a long time, he observes, Jews succeeded all over the world except in Israel, which for years had the same GDP per capita as Egypt and Jordan.
Dermer gives much of the credit for Israel’s shift toward capitalism to Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu ended Israel’s long-standing capital controls, ended the long-distance telephone monopoly, introduced major privatization reforms to the country’s industries, reduced government control of the economy, and cut taxes, among other measures. Israel has responded with sustained growth.
Full Story »
Forget the alphabet soup acronyms of a thousand organizations. The pro-Israel community has only three elements.
There’s the anti-Israel side of the pro-Israel community. This misnomer calls itself Liberal Zionism even though, like the Holy Roman Empire, it is neither liberal nor Zionist. Instead illiberal anti-Zionist groups such as J Street provide a comfortable pathway from the pro-Israel community to the anti-Israel left by selling the illusion that it is possible to be pro-Israel while opposing the survival of Israel.
These illiberal anti-Zionists, like most domestic abusers, claim to be providing “tough love” by pressuring the Jewish State to make the “tough decisions” it needs to make in order to “end the occupation.”
These “tough love” and “tough decisions” all translate into appeasing and aiding terrorists. The only people that the illiberal anti-Zionists, who clutch fistfuls of dirty Soros cash while hiding behind the blue skirts of the pro-Israel community, are willing to get tough on are Jewish victims of Islamic terror.
Somehow Abbas and Hamas never seem to come in for any tough love from these lovers of Israel who instead relish showing their tough love by kicking and beating the Jewish State at every opportunity.
And then there’s the great center of the pro-Israel community, which is not quite anti-Israel nor quite pro-Israel. Instead it hovers moderately and indecisively in the glorious middle. The center of the pro-Israel community is not really pro-Israel. Instead it’s for a two-state solution. It’s for Israel and for the PLO. It wants foreign aid for both. It wants peace. And no amount of terrorism will change its mind.
The marshmallow center of the pro-Israel community is the best recruiting ground for the anti- Israel left because its worldview is hypocritical and incoherent. It lobbies for arms for Israel and yet insists that peace is inevitable. It concedes that both sides have good arguments, but that Israel’s argument is slightly better. Or perhaps slightly less worse. It evades the issues to talk up Israel’s tech sector or the gay bars in Tel Aviv. It believes in boosterism, but not in Israel’s right to finally end terrorism.
The best and brightest culturally liberal youth naturally see through this nonsense and leave. And why shouldn’t they? On campuses they hear from one side that Israel is the devil while their side tells them that Israel is flawed, but basically means well because it is tolerant enough to concede most of the arguments of the other side. You don’t need to be a debate champion to see the trouble with this.
When its younger crowd is through singing “Shalom, Salaam”, it will go either left or right.
The center of the pro-Israel community is actually liberal and Zionist, but it is too liberal to be Zionist and too Zionist to blend well with the left. And so it is a walking contradiction that stands for nothing. It calls for tolerance and applauds its own humanism. It raises money for Israel, but it lacks all conviction when it comes to defending Israel. It is not pro-Israel in any way that truly counts.
Full Story »
After Angela Merkel last year decided to welcome millions of Muslims to Germany (and to the rest of the EU, whether they liked it or not) it seemed that here was folly by a Western leader not soon to be matched. But President Obama seems to have been inspired to play the old game of “Can You Top This?” Along with Russian strongman Vladimir Putin he is reported to be drawing up a draft “peace resolution” to end the Syrian civil war that would label the entire Golan Heights as Syrian territory.
This is an idiocy—not to mention injustice–of which one says “How shall I count the ways?” Steve Postal in American Thinker has listed some of them.
1) Israel has a stronger claim than Syria to the Heights. Before Syria gained independence in 1945, the Golan was controlled by France and before that by the Ottoman Empire. Syria had control of the Golan for 22 years, from 1945 until the Six Day War of 1967, while Israel has had control of two thirds of the Golan Heights for 49 years.
2) Israel’s enemies, from the ancient Assyrians to present day Syria, have used the Heights as a launching pad against her. Prior to 1967 Syria used its high ground to shell Israel and launch terror attacks. Since then, with Israel on that ground, the border has been relatively quiet.
3) To whom is the Golan to be “returned?” You can’t put Humpty Dumpty together again. Even when there is some sort of arrangement, Syria is most unlikely to resume its old shape. Currently Islamic state and other jihadist groups, Hezbollah and the Iranian Guards are vying for territory close to the Golan. Sooner or later, if Israel relinquishes the Golan, it is likely to be fighting Hezbollah in both Lebanon and on the Golan.
4) Giving up the Golan would allow Israel’s enemies once again to threaten its water supply as Syria did in the “War over Water” from 1964 to 1967.
5) Israel has developed the Golan so that it is a vital part of its economy. It is also thought to contain oil and gas deposits. It makes no sense to give all this up to Israel’s most bitter enemies.
6) The Golan has important archaeological sites, notably Jewish religious sites from the Second Temple period up to the 11th century, which could find themselves at the tender mercy of Islamic State.
Postal doesn’t even mention what from the West’s point of view should be the most crucial argument against weakening Israel by exposing her to aggression from the Golan Heights: Syria’s effort at nuclear proliferation. Israeli journalist Ruthie Blum reports that John Hannah, a former adviser to Vice President Cheney, in Foreign Affairs recalls being summoned by Cheney to hear the head of Israel’s Mossad present “compelling evidence” that North Korea was building in Syria a replica of its own reactor and it was “perilously close to completion.” Hannah writes “Just imagine the nightmare that the world would have faced if, on top of everything else, we were also dealing with the nightmare of the Islamic State getting its hands on a plutonium-producing nuclear reactor.” Israel, he says, not only discovered it in the nick of time but “also carried out the attack that was almost certainly the only means of ensuring the reactor never went hot.”
Full Story »
The March 22 jihadist attacks in Brussels were predictable. What is surprising is that they did not take place sooner. What is also surprising is that more people were not killed. It seems that the authors of the attacks had larger projects in mind; they wanted to attack a nuclear power plant. Others may succeed in doing just that.
In the last two decades, Belgium has become the hub of jihad in Europe. The district of Molenbeek in Brussels is now a foreign Islamist territory in the heart of Belgium. It is not, however, a lawless zone: sharia law has effectively replaced Belgian law. Almost all the women wear veils or burqas; those who do not take risks. Drug trafficking and radical mosques are everyplace. The police stay outside and intervene only in cases of extreme emergency, using military-like commando operations. Other areas of Belgium, such as Shaerbeek and Anderlecht have the same status as Molenbeek.
The Belgian authorities have allowed the situation to deteriorate. The situation in the country now is virtually equivalent to surrender.
They seemed to hope that willful blindness and accepting the unacceptable would permit the country to be spared. It did not.
The attack on Belgium’s Jewish Museum on May 24, 2014 should have served as a warning. It did not. That “only” Jews were the target led the Belgian government to underestimate the threat. The jihadi who wanted to kill passengers on a train from Amsterdam to Paris, on August 21, 2015, prepared his attack in Brussels. That three American heroes neutralized him before he could start shooting again led the Belgian government to think the danger was not large.
The jihadis who struck Paris on November 13, 2015 had also organized their attacks from Molenbeek, but the blood was not spilled in Belgium. Belgian authorities perhaps assumed that Belgium would be spared. They spoke of “imminent danger” for a day or so, but never increased security.
One of the organizers of the Paris bombings, Salah Abdeslam, Europe’s most wanted terrorist criminal, was able to live peacefully in Molenbeek for four months until police decided to arrest him. Belgian police knew exactly where he was, but did nothing until French authorities asked them to. After his arrest, he was treated as a petty criminal, not a jihadi terrorist. Police did not ask him anything concerning the jihadist networks with which he worked. Because he was hurt during police operations, officers who interrogated him were ordered to be gentle. The people who agreed to hide him for so long were not considered suspects and were not indicted.
The Brussels jihadist attacks took place two days later.
Despite the worst attacks on Belgium soil since World War II, Belgian authorities do not seem ready to change their behavior.
Abdelhamid Abaaoud, one of the planners of the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, was—like many terrorists in Europe—from Molenbeek, Belgium. Philippe Moureaux was mayor of Molenbeek for 20 years, thanks to his alliance with radical Islamists.
Full Story »
We recently attended a lecture in Netanya by American-Israeli Hank Citron, who divides his time between Manhattan and Netanya. A former history professor in New Jersey, Hank is a colorful character who grew up in a Zionist household, the son of European immigrants, attended Hebrew University in the 1950s on a scholarship after working his way across the Atlantic on a freighter, and boxed professionally to finance his PhD from New York University.
Hank gave a one hour lecture on the life of Ze’ev Jabotinsky (1880-1940). One of the first, surprising, things we learned about this great leader, little known today outside of Israel, is that there are more monuments and streets in Israel named for him than for Theodor Herzl, Chaim Weizmann, or David Ben-Gurion, all of whom are much better known internationally.
Hank put Jabotinsky’s greatest accomplishment into perspective. He reminded us that the Third Jewish Revolt against the Romans, led by the messianic Simon bar Kochba (132-136 CE), resulted in a horrific defeat for the Jews. As a result, Jews renounced armed revolt or self-defense as a nation. Jabotinsky, single-minded in his devotion to Zionism, was the one who rekindled the idea of a Jewish army in the first decades of the 20th century, the first step back towards Jewish nationhood.
Born in cosmopolitan Odessa on the shores of the Black Sea, Jabotinsky enjoyed a secular upbringing in what was the fourth largest city in Imperial Russia (now within the borders of Ukraine). While his was not a religious family, Jabotinsky was Hebrew-literate from an early age. His well-off family rejected socialism, so it isn’t surprising that Jabotinsky wasn’t attracted to Socialist Zionism, the Zionist stream which later was led by his bitter competitor, David Ben-Gurion.
Jabotinsky was very intelligent, a prodigy in fact, who became a linguist and wrote and orated in eight languages. Initially he was inclined towards journalism and the theatre. At age 17 he went to Rome, quickly learned the language and became a journalist there while earning a law degree. Although he had already become an accomplished author and poet, Jabotinsky soon directed his talents to pursuing his Zionist ideals.
Full Story »
One of the best catalogues of human folly is the 19th century book by Charles MacKay, Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. MacKay chronicles a host of scams, superstitions and mass frenzies, including the South Sea Bubble, Tulipomania, Alchemy and Witch Mania. To this roster, some future historian may someday add the full tale of the early 21st century Climate Mania, in which a throng of politicians, United Nations bureaucrats, film stars and what not promised that if they were just given enough power over our use of lightbulbs, cars, planes, ships, oil, gas, electricity and energy in general, they would — for the greater good of mankind, mind you — arrange to control to within a few decimal points the temperature of the planet.
For the moment, however, this is not history we are talking about. We are stuck in the acute phase of Climate Mania. This Friday, “Earth Day,” brought the signing ceremony at the UN’s New York headquarters of the Paris Agreement on “Climate Change.” More than 170 nations signed on, including such curators of human progress and enlightenment as North Korea, Sudan, Cuba and Iran. Actor Leonardo Di Caprio spoke from the podium of the General Assembly chamber. Secretary of State John Kerry brought his infant granddaughter, and held her on his lap while he signed the accord. UN leaders planted a tree in the UN “Food Garden.”
Di Caprio at General Assembly
General Ban Ki-moon called it “an historic day” (everything these days is “historic”) and told the assembled eminences “The era of consumption without consequences is over” (if that’s true, then surely one of the first things to go should be the UN itself, complete with the recent $2 billion-plus makeover of its NY offices — except the UN has always enjoyed immunity from its own pronouncements).
For all the hoopla, the Paris accord is not yet a done deal. But it soon may be. For this agreement to enter into force, at least 55 countries, accounting for 55% of “global greenhouse gas emissions,” must now sort out on the national level how they plan to comply, and deposit their instruments of ratification with the UN. Fifteen have already done so
And now we descend into some of the real dirt of this deal. In the U.S., President Obama — in spirit similar to his ramming through of the Iran nuclear deal — is preparing to slide right past such Constitutional requirements as acknowledging a treaty for what it is, and submitting it to be ratified by the Senate. Which, as Julian Morris notes, the current Republican Senate majority would not do.
In a background press briefing this past Wednesday, a senior State Department was asked about the process by which the U.S. would join the Paris accord. The official replied, “We have a standard State Department exercise that we are currently going through for authorizing an executive agreement.” According to this official, the Obama administration has decided that because the U.S. joined the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change back in 1992, this new treaty is not really a treaty (never mind the “historic” festivities at the UN), but an extension of existing obligations, ergo merely a matter for Obama’s pen. (Never mind the potentially colossal cost to the average American).
Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, and Rep. Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania take a very different view, writing for the Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal under the headline “Obama’s Violating the Constitution by Not Submitting Climate Treaty to Senate.” They note that under this climate accord the U.S. would be binding itself to a long-term framework, forcing it to choke its carbon emissions “for decades to come.” They also note that when the Senate ratified the 1992 UNFCCC treaty, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee “specifically reported that any future emissions targets ‘would have to be submitted to the Senate for its Advice and Consent.’ President Obama has chosen to ignore this directive.”
There’s also the disturbing question of whether President Obama will try to couple his costly climate projects with an end-run around U.S. law that forbids government funding to any “affiliated organization of the United Nations” that grants the Palestinians membership as a state. Quick background: When UNESCO (the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) admitted the Palestinians as full members in 2011, the agency lost its U.S. funding. Since then the Obama administration has been lobbying Congress to waive U.S. law in order to resume sending American tax dollars to UNESCO.
Last month, the UNFCCC allowed the Palestinian Authority to become a full member. The Palestinians have now signed the Paris Agreement. As Sen. John Barrasso reports, Washington gives money to the UNFCCC, and the White House has “unilaterally pledged $3 billion for international climate change as part of the Paris deal.” This week, 28 senators — including Barrasso — wrote a letter to Kerry imploring the administration “to hold the Palestinians accountable for their actions in circumventing the peace process, and to abide by current law prohibiting U.S. taxpayer funds for the UNFCCC and its related entities and other UN affiliated organizations that recognize the ‘State of Palestine.’ ”
Then we come to the Paris climate treaty itself, complete with its stress on “climate justice” and “making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.”
Allow me to translate: This is a framework outlining central planning for the planet. It is all about regulating energy use and redirecting wealth around the globe, according to the preferences of such faceless international bureaucracies as the Paris treaty’s “Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice” and the “Subsidiary Body for Implementation.” There will be a largely unaccountable Green Climate Fund, and a prerogative for this Convention to proliferate lots more subsidiary bodies.
Full Story »
“The world, that understandable and lawful world, was slipping away”
— William Golding, Lord of the Flies
Today I witnessed something I’m still shaking from. The Mayor of Jerusalem came to San Francisco, and I attended his planned speech at San Francisco State University, where he was prevented from speaking in a high profile public humiliation of Israel and the Jewish community. The media are reporting he was shouted down by protestors, which makes for a nice headline, but it isn’t the real story. The real story is the university’s decision to let it happen.
Mayor Barkat’s visit was planned. University administrators expected both him and the disruptors, who reliably attend all Israeli speaking events here. The university police were sent in. But, in a decision that should deeply disturb all who value a civil society, and one that I as a Jew find profoundly demoralizing, the police were instructed not to remove the disruptors and instead to stand by and watch the event be completely shut down.
Please let that sink in. Public university administrators and police stood and watched as the Mayor of Jerusalem, the Jewish student organization that sponsored him, and all of us in attendance, were permanently bullied off the stage. Officers with guns, and the power that comes from the barrels of those guns, were instructed to stand, watch, and do nothing, as freedom of speech was replaced with a policy of whoever shouts the loudest wins, at least when it comes to shouting down a visiting Israeli dignitary. Those whom we thought were there to protect us and restore order, stood, watched, and did nothing.
The administrators’ and police’s high profile inaction emboldened the mob, which consequently grew louder and more brazen. We waited and waited for the disruptors to be removed so the event could proceed, but it never happened. Eventually, Mayor Barkat asked us to huddle around him so he could speak to us over the mob’s chants, but it was a lost cause.
“Get the f–k off our campus, get the f–k off our campus, the mob yelled at us with bullhorns, indoors, over and over. “Get the f–k off our campus.”
Presumptive of them you might think, that a public university campus is theirs, and not all of ours. Except, incredibly, they’re right. The university’s decision not to protect the speaker’s right to speak or the community’s right to hear him, constituted a de facto ceding to the mob the power to decide who is allowed to speak on campus and who is not. The university’s acquiescence to the mob means it is in fact their campus, not all of ours.
Full Story »
The Balfour Declaration of 1917 elicited euphoria among world Zionists. It was to be short lived as a chain of betrayals truncated the land promised to the Jews and limited their immigration.
The 1922 White Paper (also known as the Churchill White Paper) averred that Jews were in Palestine by right, but bowing to Arab pressure, ceded 76 percent –all the land East of the Jordan River–to the Hashemite Emir Abdullah. It was renamed Transjordan, and closed to Jewish settlement. In explanation the British stated:
“England…does not want Palestine to become ‘as Jewish as England is English’, but, rather, should become ‘a center in which Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride.’” (Ironically today Israel is poised to become more Jewish than England is English given the very real prospect that Muslims will become a majority in that nation.)
The Jews of Palestine had no choice but to accept the partition of 1922, but Arab thirst for all of Palestine resulted in murders and terrorist attacks, the Hebron massacre of 1929 and later the 1936-39 “Arab Revolt.”
The British responded with the White Paper of 1939 all but eliminating Jewish immigration to Palestine. This occurred after the infamous Evian conference of July 1938. With the exception of the Dominican Republic, all the participants refused to alter their immigration policies, thereby trapping Europe’s Jews. The Nazis were to kill one of every three Jews in the world.
In 1982, Sir Harold Wilson, who had been a member of Clement Attlee’s Cabinet when Israel became independent in 1948 and served as Prime Minister during the Six-Day War, wrote The Chariot of Israel-Britain, America and the State of Israel in which he described the British actions in 1939 as shameful and inexcusable.
After World War II the British continued their appalling anti-Jewish immigration policies, seizing and firing upon the vessels taking traumatized Holocaust survivors to Palestine.
However, the Jews of Palestine began a sustained effort to push the British out of Palestine and in February 1947 Britain announced its intent to terminate the Mandate, referring the matter of Palestine to the United Nations.
In May of that year the United Nations Special Committee On Palestine (UNSCOP) began deliberations on a “solution” to the Palestine “problem.”
These deliberations included an UNSCOP mission to examine the state of surviving Jews in displaced persons camps in Europe. The members were horrified by the conditions, but cynical enough to exploit the desperation of the refugees by deciding on a further partition of Palestine.
On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted 33 to 13 (with ten abstentions) to implement the new partition as Resolution 181. Absent in all the media hailing of the “compromise” was any mention that the Jews of Palestine had already relinquished 75 percent of the area promised in the Balfour Declaration. Media and diplomats alike would declare that the Jews were gaining 53% of “Palestine” when in fact they were left with roughly 12 percent.
Full Story »