March 12, 2002
The Editor:
The Dal. Gazette.
Dear Editor:
I fully agree with Mr. Larry Reitman that " Justice requires the truth." Sadly, however, his letter :{"Division of the Middle" March 7} shows total lack of factual truth.
He claims that the "Ottomans relinquished all claims[ as to Palestine] to the British, at the Treaty of Sevres,1920." False, as the assumption that the Turks have a legitimate right to relinquish the land of the Palestinians [Palestine] to the British or any one else, the Sevres Treaty, between Turkey and the Allied Powers was not ratified by the Turkish National Assembly, because of its reference to the Balfour Declaration. Three years later the Allied Powers concluded with Turkey the Treaty of Lausanne, 24 July 1923, . Unlike the abortive Treaty of Sevres, the new treaty omitted any reference to the Balfour Declaration, or to its acceptance by Turkey.
Be that as it may, the reference to the Balfour Declaration displays how hollow is the Zionists' claim to Palestine. This declaration is a letter from Lord Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary, to a Jewish British citizen, Lord Rothschild, stating: " His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people...,it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing no-Jewish communities in Paleastine". It is interesting to note that the four-letter word "Arab'' occurs not once in this 'document'. To refer to the Muslim and Christian Arabs of Palestine, who constituted, at the time, 92% of the population of Palestine and owned 98% of its land, as the "non-Jewish communities" is not merely preposterous but deliberately fraudulent. Needless to say, this letter has no shred of legality, in international law, as Palestine did not belong to Balfour to assume such acts of generosity. The noted British historian, ProfessorArnold Toynbee, described the British role, in issuing this document, in these words :
                             " We [the British] were taking it upon ourselves to give away something that was not ours to give. We were promising                                  rights of some kind in the Palestinian Arabs' country to a third party."
Similarly, the well-known Jewish writer, Arthur Koestler, summed it aptly, when he described the Balfour Declaration as a document in which " one nation promised another the country of a third.
Mr. Riteman refers to the British and Transjordan. Transjordan was neverpart of Palestine. However, even if that was so, and it was not, how is it acceptable, in the Zionist doctrine, for the British to have the right to include it in the Mandate, and in fact it was not, and then not to have the right to separate it in their own free will?
Larry Riteman speaks of the U.N. General assembly Partition Scheme of Nov. 29, 1947. Let us look at the facts. At that time, the Jews in Palestine constituted one third of the population, a large number of them illegal immigrants, and owned 5.6% of the land. This scheme allowed 56% for the Jewish state and 42% for the Arab state , 2% for Jerusalem as an international entity. Would any people, in the place of the Palestinians, accept such an injustice? It is interesting to note that times have not changed as the U.S., then, forced by intimidation and threats, many countries to vote for this resolution. U.S. Under-Secretary of State, Sumner Welles, stated: " By direct order of the White House, every form of pressure, direct and indirect, was used to make sure that the necessary majority would be gained."
Mr. Riteman reaches the height of audacity by questioning the number of the refugees and the way the Zionist forces uprooted them and cleansed them from their homeland, through a planned orchestrated process. It would take volumes to document the massacres and procedures used. He re-produces the old Israeli lie that the refugees left " at the urging of their own leaders.", through radio broadcasts. This fable was dismantled and exposed by  Erskine Childers , who examined the American and British monitoring records of all Middle East broadcasts throughout 1948, and reported : " There was not a single order or appeal or suggestion about evacuation from Palestine, from any Arab radio station, inside or outside Palestine, in 1948. There is repeated monitored record of Arab appeals even flat orders, to civilians of Palestine to stay put." {The Spectator, 12 May 1961}.
I will let Nathan Chofshi, a well-known Israeli thinker, tell Mr. Riteman, as he told Rabbi Kaplan, another Israeli apologist, how Israel's leaders drove the Palestinians out of their homes: " If Rabbi Kaplan really wanted to know what happened, we old settlers in Palestine who witnessed the flight, could tell him how and in what manner we, Jews, forced the Arabs to leave their cities and villages... Here was a people who lived on its own land... We came and turned the native Arabs ino tragic refugees. And we still dare to slander and malign them, to besmirch their name. Instead of being ashamed of what we did and of trying to undo some of the evil we committed by helping these unfortunate refugees, we justify our terrible acts and even atempt to glorify them."
I think it behooves Mr. Riteman, and his friends, to take heed of the truth instead of maligning Ms. Grant, who has the courage to tell the truth.
Yours Sincerely
Ismail Zayid