Ikhwanweb :: The Muslim Brotherhood Official English Website

Thu93 2020

Last update18:06 PM GMT

Back to Homepage
Font Size : 12 point 14 point 16 point 18 point
Israel and the “delegitimization” oxymoron
Israel and the “delegitimization” oxymoron
Alan Hart argues that in law the foundations upon which Israel claims legitimacy do not actually exist and that “only the Palestinians could give it the legitimacy it craved”. He says that “what delegitimizes Israel is the truth of history”, which is why “Zionism has worked so hard … to have the truth suppressed”.
Monday, April 5,2010 23:10
by Alan Hart redress.cc

Alan Hart argues that in law the foundations upon which Israel claims legitimacy do not actually exist and that “only the Palestinians could give it the legitimacy it craved”. He says that “what delegitimizes Israel is the truth of history”, which is why “Zionism has worked so hard … to have the truth suppressed”.

For readers who may not be intimately familiar with English terminology, an oxymoron is a figure of speech by which contradictory terms are combined to form an expressive phrase or epithet such as cruel kindness and falsely true. (It’s derived from the Greek word oxymoros, meaning pointedly foolish).

Here, I’m going to confine myself to one question and answer.

The question is: How can you delegitimize something (in this case the Zionist state) when it is NOT legitimate?

Original text of Balfour Declaration
Balfour Declaration, 1917

Leaving aside the fairy story of God’s promise, (which even if true would have no bearing on the matter because the Jews who “returned” in answer to Zionism’s call had no biological connection to the ancient Hebrews), the Zionist state’s assertion of legitimacy rests on the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the UN General Assembly’s partition plan resolution of 1947.

The only real relevance of the Balfour Declaration is in the fact that it was an expression of both the willingness of a British government to use Jews for imperial purposes and the willingness of Zionist Jews to be used. The truth is that Britain had no right whatsoever to promise Zionism a place in Palestine, territory the British do not possess. (Palestine at the time was controlled and effectively owned by Ottoman Turkey). The Balfour Declaration did allow Zionism to say that its claim to Palestine had been recognized by a major power, and then to assert that the Zionist enterprise was therefore a legitimate one. But the legitimacy Britain conveyed by implication was entirely spurious, meaning not genuine, false, a sham.

Zionism’s assertion that Israel was given its birth certificate and thus legitimacy by the UN General Assembly partition resolution of 29 November 1947 is pure propaganda nonsense, as demonstrated by an honest examination of the record of what actually happened.

In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.

Despite that, by the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote, the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a non-binding proposal – meaning that it could have no effect, would not become binding, until and unless it was approved by the Security Council.

The truth is that the General Assembly’s partition proposal never went to the Security Council for consideration. Why not? Because the US knew that, if approved, and because of Arab and other Muslim opposition, it could only be implemented by force, and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.

So the partition plan was vitiated (became invalid) and the question of what the hell to do about Palestine – after Britain had made a mess of it and walked away – was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favoured and proposed by the US was temporary UN Trusteeship. It was while the General Assembly was debating what do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence – actually in defiance of the will of the organized international community, including the Truman administration.

The truth of the time was that Israel, which came into being mainly as a consequence of Zionist terrorism and pre-planned ethnic cleansing, had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist unless it was recognized and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state. In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved.
As it was put to me many years ago by Khalid al-Hassan, Fatah’s intellectual giant on the right, that legitimacy was “the only thing the Zionists could not take from us by force”.

The truth of history as summarized briefly above is the explanation of why, really, Zionism has always insisted that its absolute pre-condition for negotiations with more than a snowball’s chance in hell of a successful outcome (an acceptable measure of justice for the Palestinians and peace for all) is recognition of Israel’s right to exist. A right, it knows, it does not have and will never have unless the Palestinians grant it.

It can be said without fear of contradiction (except by Zionists) that what delegitimizes Israel is the truth of history. And that is why Zionism has worked so hard, today with less success than in the past and therefore with increasing desperation, to have the truth suppressed.

Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC "Panorama" foreign correspondent and a Middle East specialist. His Latest book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, is a three-volume epic in its American edition.  He blogs at www.alanhart.net and tweets at www.twitter.com/alanauthor.
tags: Zionism / Hebrew / Jewish State / Jerusalem / Nakba / Israel Occupation / Israeli Settlement / Balfour Declaration / Balfour / British Government / Zionist Terrorism / 1917
Posted in Palestine  
Related Articles
Samson and the second Nakba: a short history of the Jewish Hercules
Netanyahu’s Ring and the Legitimacy of Zionism
Chutzpah: Thy Name is Zionism
U.S. Interests vs. The Jewish State
Action against Israeli settlement produce in London
US Interests vs. the Jewish State
WCC calls to freeze and dismantle Israeli settlements
Bahar: Zionism is the only enemy of the Palestinian people
Thousands of Palestinians commemorate Palestine Nakba in Kafrin village
The Coming Breakup of American Zionism
Moussa: The Arab League rejects the racist idea of the Jewish state
Zionism is the problem
Report: Israel occupation demolished 90 Palestinian houses since Annapolis
Khudari: Israel occupation disregards int’l appeals when it allows in 30 trucks
UN calls on Israel occupation to allow supplying Gaza with fuel, aid
Obama on Zionism and Hamas
Balfour to Blair
Resisting the Nakba
Rally At the Bar Association on Nakba Day
Hebrew sources: Peres personally supervised IOF massacre in Khan Younis
What is a Jewish state?
“Judaism” is not “Zionism”
Hebrew media: Hizbullah fighters defeated IOF troops in Lebanon
Holy Land churches condemn Christian Zionism
Hebrew press: Negotiations underway to swap Palestinian prisoners with captured soldier
Global Leaders Call for Action on Arab-Israeli Settlement
Sorrows of Zionism
Avraham Burg on Israel as a Jewish state, Zionism