NY Times Continuing Its Defamation of Israel

[HLS Classmate]

.
After thinking long and hard since I am not Jewish, it is “a matter of conscience” not to let pass without comment the highly-defamatory 2/4/2024 NY Times Magazine article on the Founding of Israel.

[It is available at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... flict.html. It is also available as an attachment to John Karls’ e-mail of 2/6/2024 which is the third following item.]

The first and second following items are an exchange of e-mails John Karls had with another law school classmate whose identity I do not know and who had been one of the three law school classmates to comment on the NY Times Magazine article during the 2/5/2024 Zoom Chat.

[John had not done so because his comments were so voluminous, but the next day he sent them to the group in the form of his 2/6/2024 e-mail – the third following item.]

The first following item asks the classmate who first raised the topic of the 2/4/2024 article during the 2/5/2024 Zoom Chat and who John says is Jewish – whether “The Palestinian Big Lie” is something Jews tell each other.

Since there was no response, John asked me yesterday (2/9/2024) whether I knew since I also have many Jewish friends.

So far as I can ascertain, telling “The Big Palestinian Lie” is confined to Stu Eizenstat and the NY Times Magazine article in which it is attributed to Tel Aviv U Prof Itamar Rabinovich on p. 40 of the copy of the article attached to John Karls’ 2/6/2024 e-mail.

Because the NY Times Magazine article is highly defamatory in many respects (but particularly this) and should have been properly edited before it saw the light of day, it seemed “a matter of conscience” to post this material on the Reading Liberally website.

BTW, since Emily Bazelon who compiled the NY Times Magazine article, chose to include The Palestinian Big Lie and the other highly-defamatory material, it would appear that it is something that she perpetuates in conversations with others.

HLS Classmate


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: HLS-67- Thank You + a Q 4 U
Date: 2024-02-07 14:52
From: john@johnkarls.com
To: [Redacted]

.
Dear [Redacted},

[First sentence redacted.]

It was nice to hear from you again!!!

It’s interesting, as the Brits would say, that – “Great minds run in the same FURROW.” That you, like I, were interested primarily in pre-1919 land ownership.

[And no, I do not know about Emily Bazelon’s roots. Although I volunteered to attempt to answer any queries, I don’t even know how you could find out, short of asking her.]

*****
My Q 4 U

You didn’t indicate whether you were as appalled as I at Stu Eizenstat’s inclusion in his Holocaust Day Speech of the BIG PALESTINIAN LIE – that the world stole land from the Arabs and gave it to Holocaust survivors.

And was equally appalled to discover that Tel Aviv U Prof. Itamar Rabinovich repeated the Big Palestinian Lie on p. 40 of my attachment version of the NY Times Mag article!!!

Since I am not Jewish, both of them saying it publicly makes me wonder whether it is something that Jews tell each other.

*****
[Yes, I would like your opinion despite the following comments.]

The Big Palestinian Lie purports to psychoanalyze the reason(s) why each of the 33 countries that voted for Resolution 181, did so.

(1) My essay posited that the 13 Latin American countries simply did what they were told by Sam the Banana Man. And there is no evidence that Sam thought Res 181 involved stealing anyone’s land.

(2) My essay posited that Harry Truman was disgusted that Britain and France were not permitting Holocaust survivors to return to their homes, but were intending to keep them interned in the concentration camps forever (the last, despite Truman’s efforts, did not close until 1951).

His disgust caused Truman to force Britain and France to acquiesce in ending the 4 League of Nations mandates and in the formation of UNSCOP to oversee the end of the Palestinian mandate.

BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT TRUMAN FAVORED “STEALING” ARAB LAND!!!

AND IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE 8 WESTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES THAT VOTED AFFIMATIVELY WOULD NOT DARE CROSS TRUMAN, SINCE THEIR ECONOMIES WERE STILL IN A SHAMBLES, MANY STILL HAD LARGE LEND/LEASE DEBTS, AND TRUMAN WAS PREPARING TO PROPOSE THE MARSHALL PLAN.

(3) I’ve seen literature that posits that the USSR, Ukrainian SSR, Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia and Poland cast their 5 votes at the direction of the USSR because Moscow hoped the result would be two socialist states.

(4) IMHO it isn’t even worth the effort to try to psychoanalyze the remaining 6 affirmative votes (Australia, NZ, Philippines, Liberia, South Africa & Canada).

*****
So IMHO, Stu and Itamar are wrong EVEN ON A PSYCHIATRIC-ANALYSIS BASIS.

Sorry to have sounded off further, but Stu’s and Itamar’s publicly stating the Big Palestinian Lie really “sticks in my craw”!!!

Sincerely,

John Karls

PS – Redacted.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: HLS-67-The NY Times Magazine Article Re The Founding of Israel
Date: 2024-02-06 20:46 EST
From: Redacted
To: john@johnkarls.com

Very interesting. When I mentioned NYT mag article in zoom meeting I was particularly interested in pre 1919 land ownership. ( Is Emily Bazelon related to great Judge).

My understanding was that pre arrival of Holocaust emigres there were at least 3 aleyas( in late 1800s) of jews fleeing pogroms in Lithuania and Ukraine etc. That then Baron Rothschild had bought land near Mount Carmel to give/ sell to Jews. So I was curious what the historyof land ownership was generally. And why more not said on that.

Well one could go on and on about history. The pity is that many of the opinionated on all sides are a little light on their history.

[Redacted]

Sent from my iPhone


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: HLS-67-The NY Times Magazine Article Re The Founding of Israel
Date: 2024-02-06 12:06
From: john@johnkarls.com
To: john@johnkarls.com
Bcc: Law School Classmates
Attachment:

HLS-67-m201-NY Times Magazine Article Re Palestine-Israel - The Road to 1948 (from 1920) - 2-1-2024.docx

(17.15 MiB) Downloaded 87 times

Dear Friends,

During our Zoom Chat yesterday, several of our colleagues referenced the attached article which appeared in the NY Times Magazine of 2/4/2024 (it is available to NYT subscribers at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... flict.html).

I did not comment yesterday because there was so much to say and commandeering our entire Zoom Chat on one item was not desirable.

Accordingly, my comments follow and anyone who has no interest in the subject can delete this e-mail without reading further.

**********
The reason for such voluminous comments?

Most of you have heard more times than you care to remember that my ex-wife of 33 years was the Co-Author of the nation’s best-selling high-school world-history textbook (McGraw Hill with National Geographic Illustrations) and that one of my three simultaneous careers was reading annually in my spare time 12-15 thick history tomes & bios to uncover overlooked nuggets for possible inclusion in the next edition, of which there were six during the 33 years. That’s 500-600 tomes/bios by the time the gavel went down 23 years ago and since “old dogs don’t learn new tricks” and retirement affords more time for reading, the total tomes/bios today is well over 1,500.

**********
The NYT Mag “Article” – actually a panel-discussion moderated by Emily Bazelon

Before reading anything, you should know the author(s).

There were 6 panelists (two Israelis, three Palestinians and one Harvard Prof) whose credentials, summarized at the end of the article, are impeccable.

No credentials are listed for the moderator, Emily Bazelon. A graduate of Yale and Yale Law School, she is a Senior Research Fellow at Yale Law School in addition to being a staff writer for the NYT Magazine. She and her husband, a Prof. of History at Yale, are members of a Reform Synagogue.

**********
Specific Comments About The Article Whose Focus Begins in 1920

*****
(1) Context

Since the article’s focus only begins in 1920 and since the quantities, which are often miniscule, are often described with expansive adjectives which, technically, due to the scale are correct – the following context is borrowed from the material on the website of the non-partisan public-policy study/action group of 229 members nationwide that I have facilitated for 18 years --

(A) The basic problem with Arab and world opinion is that it ignores the historical record that since 738 AD, the Muslim world had welcomed Jews into Palestine and permitted them to purchase land.

(B) The Brits, during their governing Palestine following its capture from the Ottoman Empire during World War I, permitted virtually no Jewish immigration.

(C) The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (“UNSCOP”) which was established 5/15/1947 to oversee the termination of British rule, carefully catalogued who owned what.

(D) UNSCOP reported that there were only 1,077,000 Muslims out of a total population of 1,846,000 – or 58.3%.

(E) Accordingly, UNSCOP recommended, and UN Resolution 181 proclaimed, British rule would end on 5/14/1948 to be succeeded by a “Jewish State” and a “Palestinian State” based on who owned what even though the Jewish State and the Palestinian State resembled a “checker board” of land ownership.

(F) Israel accepted U.N. Resolution 181 and declared its independence on 5/14/1948 – and was immediately invaded by Egypt, Syrian, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon.

(G) This “two state solution” was followed by two additional “two state solutions” that Arabs have rejected because they continue TO REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE ISRAEL’S RIGHT TO EXIST.

(H) Muslims aren’t even willing, before throwing all Israelis "into the sea," to buy back the land that their ancestors sold to the Jews.

*****
(2) The Balfour Declaration (aka Doctrine in most historical works)

The article makes several references to the Balfour Declaration, most notably in p. 11 of the attachment) by positing that the British “mandate” for governing Palestine incorporated the text of the Balfour Declaration.

As if to imply that its incorporation was significant!!!

It was a proverbial “nothing burger” in terms of the way the Brits governed Palestine!!!

Indeed, the Balfour Declaration has been misunderstood in many historical contexts, including by Hitler.

Immediately after the Brits captured in 1917 from the Ottomans the remainder of their Empire (which became Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Palestine), British Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour wrote a letter to the head of the world-wide Rothschild family promising that Jews not currently living in Palestine would be permitted to make it their national home.

This letter was the basis for Hitler’s claim that Germany had been “stabbed in the back” by international Jewry toward the end of World War I. Certainly its substance, its timing, and the person to whom it was addressed lend credence to Hitler’s claim (though, of course, there is little or no evidence that the international financial-powerhouse Rothschild family actually took any action as a result of the letter from Balfour).

Although the Balfour Doctrine had promised Jews not living in Palestine in 1917 a homeland there, the British following the end of World War I decided that it was more important from the viewpoint of oil supplies to renege on the Balfour Doctrine – which is why there is little or no evidence that the international Rothschild family reacted to Arthur Balfour’s letter since they were probably properly skeptical.

Indeed, when Hitler’s concentration camps opened and the international community refused to permit German Jews to immigrate into their countries (including the famous ship loaded with Jewish refugees that sailed around the world and was refused by everyone, including the U.S., to permit its passengers to disembark and eventually had to sail the Jewish refugees back to Germany), Britain announced a policy in 1939 that Jewish immigration in Palestine would be limited to a grand total of 75,000 for the next 5 years (i.e., 15,000/year) and prohibited thereafter.

This policy was strictly enforced. Indeed, the Hollywood movie Exodus starring Paul Newman was a hoax. On July 11, 1947, the Exodus sailed from Sète, France loaded with 4,515 European Jewish Holocaust Survivors. It was intercepted by the British Royal Navy (1) in violation of international law because it occurred on the high seas, and (2) with loss of life including some Americans among the crew. It was escorted to Cyprus where the 4,515 European Jewish Holocaust Survivors were imprisoned briefly. The movie falsely shows the 4,515 European Jewish Holocaust Survivors (which the movie says numbered only 611), making a daring escape from the British prison back to the Exodus, and engaging in a hunger strike that forced the Brits to permit the Exodus and its human cargo to sail to Haifa. There was no escape or hunger strike in Cyprus. The Brits did sail Exodus to Haifa, where the Brits re-loaded the 4,515 European Jewish Holocaust Survivors onto three more sea-worthy vessels. The Brits then sent the 4,515 human cargo back to France. It was at Port-de-Bouc near Marseilles that on August 2, 1947, the 4,515 European Jewish Holocaust Survivors refused to disembark and engaged in their 24-hour hunger strike. In response, the French refused to force them to disembark. So the Brits sailed them to Hamburg located in the British occupation zone of Germany, from which the Brits transported the 4,515 European Jewish Holocaust Survivors to be imprisoned in the Pöppendorf Concentration Camp at Lübeck, Germany which was also in the British occupation zone.

Indeed, one of the worst scandals of World War II was the decision by the victorious Americans, Brits and French (the 7 million man French army from the African colonies was the largest allied army at the time of the Normandy invasion) NOT TO PERMIT THE 1.2 MILLION SURVIVORS OF HITLER’S CONCENTRATION CAMPS TO RETURN TO THEIR EUROPEAN HOMES. INSTEAD, THE AMERICANS, BRITS AND FRENCH CONTINUED TO CONFINE THEM IN THE CONCENTRATION CAMPS (old concentration camps, new management – though the ovens were turned off).

The Brits and French were planning to keep the 1.2 million Jewish survivors confined in Hitler’s concentration camps permanently (the last did not close until 1951).

However, President Truman, in disgust, forced the Brits and French to acquiesce in ending the League of Nations “mandate” for Britain to rule Palestine and in forming a United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (“UNSCOP”) to carefully catalogue who owned what in Palestine. UNSCOP, which did not have as members France, Britain or the United States, made the survey and recommended that Palestine be partitioned on the basis of actual ownership of the land. The UNSCOP Report lists the population of the Palestine Mandate at the end of 1945 and the end of 1946 (reflecting no changes as a result of the 1939 British prohibition on Jewish immigration).

*****
(3) Land Ownership in Palestine and THE BIG PALESTINIAN LIE

The attached article contains extensive bold-red highlighting by Yours Truly, virtually all of which pertains to land ownership/purchasing.

The reason is set forth above in the “(1) Context” section.

The Zionist movement concentrated on buying land from Muslims which was perfectly legal from 758 AD until the 1917 demise of the Ottoman Empire.

And UNSCOP focused solely on who owned what while ignoring other considerations such as the plight of the concentration-camp survivors WHO WERE STILL (AND IN MANY CASES, FOR SOME TIME YET TO COME) CONFINED TO THE CONCENTRATION CAMPS (though with the ovens turned off).

THE BIG PALESTINIAN LIE???

Which, unfortunately, is included in Stu Eizenstat’s speech on International Holocaust Day 1/26/2024 which Don Leka, at Stu’s behest, distributed to our group –

“And, especially at this moment, we recall these failures because the Holocaust reminds us that the desperate Jews of Europe had no safe haven. As I said, nations around the world –- including our own -– refused to let them in. IT WAS OUT OF THIS CATASTROPHE THAT THE WORLD RECOGNIZED THE NECESSITY OF A JEWISH STATE IN THE JEWS’ ANCESTRAL HOMELAND.” (All Caps emphasis added.)

OMG, this is the BIG PALESTINIAN LIE that “the world” (presumably a reference to the United Nations) stole Arab land and gave it to the Holocaust survivors.

Which is used to justify the chant “from the River to the Sea” meaning the extermination of Israel!!!

ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE!!!

The record of UNSCOP is that it focused solely on land ownership and did NOT consider the then-current plight of Holocaust survivors.

BTW, it would be beneficial IMHO for such authoritative figures as Stu NOT to repeat the Big Palestinian Lie.

Though in Stu’s defense, Tel Aviv U Prof Itamar Rabinovich on p. 40 of the attachment, also repeats the Big Palestinian Lie.

*****
(4) Land-Ownership Footnotes

First, the obvious reason why James Balfour addressed his letter to the Head of the Worldwide Rothschild Family is that he and his family had been active in assisting Jewish refugees prior to 1917 to emigrate to Palestine and purchase land there.

So Balfour wasn’t just “picking out of the air” someone to whom he could address his letter.

Second, the Negev Desert --

On p. 44 of the attachment Hebrew U in Jerusalem Prof. Abigail Jacobson says (disingenuously IMHO) –

“When you look at the demographic realities of 1947 and the division of the land, it was 55 percent for the Jewish state and 45 percent for the Palestinian state even though there were double the number of Palestinians as Jews at that point. If you were a Palestinian in 1947, would you accept this offer?”

Two reasons why this is disingenuous???

First, UNSCOP was simply tabulating who owned what.

So, Law School 101 question, -- What if only a dozen people owned 75% of the land – would you have expected UNSCOP to abandon its modus vivendi and propose a massive wealth-redistribution program???

Second, the vast Negev Desert was virtually entirely unpopulated and, therefore, not owned by anyone.

So yes, UNSCOP proposed it be added to “The Jewish State” thereby making the division appear lopsided.

*****
Sam The Banana Man

Page 44 of the article (IMHO misleadingly) says –

There are streets in Israel named after the foreign minister in Guatemala, Jorge García Granados, who organized a bloc of Latin American ambassadors to the U.N. to vote for partition.

So Israelis apparently don’t even know that their true benefactor for the Latin American bloc was Sam the Banana Man.

And yes, reading so much does unearth quite a few interesting “nuggets” that don’t make the next edition of McGraw-Hill’s High School World History Textbook!!!

Samuel Zemurray was born Schmuel Zmurri in Russia to a poor Jewish family in 1877. They emigrated from Russia and immigrated into the U.S. when Sam was 14.

With no formal education, he entered the banana trade at age 18 in Mobile, Alabama where he specialized in buying bananas that had ripened in the transport ships and had to be sold within a matter of hours. By 1910, he owned extensive banana plantations in Honduras. By 1911, Honduran governmental policies imperiled his company. So he smuggled into Honduras former Honduran President Bonilla together with two mercenaries Sam had hired and staged a successful coup.

[Query – was this the first so-called “Banana Republic”?]

In 1930, Sam merged his company into United Fruit for a minority stock interest and retired. By 1933, United Fruit, primarily as the result of mismanagement, had seen its stock price plunge by 90%. Sam met with the United Fruit Board, primarily Boston Brahmins, and with his thick Yiddish accent presented his ideas on how to turn the company around. They laughed. So Sam mounted a proxy fight, recruited 12 other minority shareholders who, with Sam, owned 60% of the stock, voted out the old board and put himself in charge. Sam’s ideas turned the company around.

BTW, THE SHIP “EXODUS” FEATURED IN THE MGM “HOAX” STARRING PAUL NEWMAN WAS MADE AVAILABLE BY SAM – IT HAD BEEN ONE OF HIS BANANA BOATS.

However, Sam’s most important role in achieving Statehood for Israel WAS HIS ARRANGING THE LATIN-AMERICAN VOTING BLOC.

On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 181 which partitioned Palestine into, what the resolution termed, a “Jewish State” and an “Arab State” based on the careful survey performed by the U.N. Special Committee on Palestine (which included none of the major powers) of who owned what.

What is not well known is that the vote in the U.N. General Assembly was 33-13 with 10 abstentions – and that a 2/3 majority had been required.

[In June 1945, only 50 countries met in the San Francisco Opera House to hammer out the new U.N. Charter and since most of the world still comprised European colonies, it is not surprising that only 6 additional countries had joined the U.N. by 1947.]

Yes, the European countries had voted in favor as a bloc because they were so desperate to get rid of their Jews and finally close the Concentration Camps. And the Muslim countries voted as a bloc in opposition.

So who supplied the 2/3 vote???

Sam the Banana Man, of course!!!

In September 1947 (two months before the U.N. vote), Sam curtailed his hours at United Fruit and spent most of his remaining time focusing on the governments of Latin America – Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela – all of whom voted at the U.N. in favor of Resolution 181!!!

Indeed, on May 11, 1948 (3 days before Israel declared its independence), Sam resigned from United Fruit citing “personal reasons.” And 13 months later, in June 1949 when the armistice was signed ending the Arab-Israeli War, Sam returned as head of United Fruit.

**********
Valediction

If anyone has read this far, s/he deserves a Gold Star.

If anyone has any questions, I know none of you is shy – return e-mail will result in best efforts to provide answers.

Respectfully submitted,

John Karls


**********
Disclaimer Re Lillian Rothschild Berkman

None of the foregoing information came from Lillian.

She was one of my many opera friends resulting from tossing more than 3,000 bouquets to sopranos, mostly in Europe but some in NYC (see “Have Bouquet, Will Travel” in the NY Times 7/25/2004 at https://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/arts ... ravel.html).

Most of the world’s multi-zillionaires are widows (women live longer than men) and feel they were a “slave” to a tyrant and now the tyrant is dead!!!

So they will indulge their own loves – the fine and performing arts.

And can’t believe their eyes that here is a male helping females by tossing bouquets.

So they all want to meet you to find out what makes you tick.

And if you can talk circles around them on the fine and performing arts without being obnoxious, they all want to be your friend and they compete with each other for your attention.

Lillian Rothsshild Berkman (1922-2001) outlived two husbands, the first of whom was the-then Head of the Worldwide Rothschild Family. As a result of which she controlled the world’s two largest collections of Old Masters – her own personal collection and Old Masters that had been owned by Holocaust victims for whom no heirs could be found. As a result of which, she was on the Boards of the Met Museum and several other of the world’s most prestigious museums, all of whom obviously hoped to be remembered in her will or to be permitted to exhibit temporarily pieces from either/both collections.

Lillian was delighted to Chair my “I Have A Dream”® Foundation of Stamford CT that provided tutors and mentors for 200 housing-project children with a guarantee of college tuition.

And, at my invitation as volunteer Treasurer of IHAD-National that oversaw 178 similar projects in 51 American cities, to join the IHAD-National Board.

BTW, she was also a Member of the Harvard Governing Board and chaired its New-Building-Contribution Committee and also its Law School Visiting Committee.

RIP, Lillian!!!