UN 'Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People,' November 29, 2005
Israel Wiped Off the Map at the UN

UN publication currently on UN website attacks legitimacy of Israel

But that isn't the only misleading statement in the UN's response to Ambassador Bolton. In the January 16, 2006 UN letter Gambari states that the only thing worrying Secretary-General Kofi Annan about the map was that "the map has acquired a very new and troubling connotation in light of the remarks made recently by the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran."

But lo and behold, far from a new phenomenon, it turns out that the UN-sponsored message of wiping Israel off the map, is still on its web pages. A UN publication, entitled "The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917-1988," and produced by the UN Division for Palestinian Rights (1990), rewrites history from the early nineteenth century on.

The UN website is used by students, teachers, laypersons and legislators across the globe.

Here are selections:

    ********

    The Origins and Evolution
    of the Palestine Problem:
    1917-1988

    ...the British Government had not possessed the right "to dispose of Palestine"...[T]he commitments to the Arabs not only had been infringed by the Sykes-Picot agreement but, ...disregard[ed]... the inherent rights and the wishes of the Palestinian people...[T]the British Government had given Zionist leaders separate assurances regarding the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people in Palestine", an undertaking that sowed the seeds of prolonged conflict in Palestine....[T]he Balfour Declaration...ultimately led to partition and to the problem as it exists today. Any understanding of the Palestine issue, therefore, requires some examination of this Declaration which can be considered the root of the problem of Palestine.

    ...
    The historical background of the "Jewish national home" concept
    ...the goal of zionism from the start was the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine. The rights of the people of Palestine themselves received no attention in these plans. ...The Balfour Declaration became a highly controversial document. It disturbed those Jewish circles who were not in favour of the Zionist aim of the creation of a Jewish State...Many Jewish communities of non-Zionist convictions regarded themselves as nationals of their countries, and the concept of a "Jewish national home" created strong conflicts of loyalties...Foremost among Jewish critics was Sir Edwin Montagu, Secretary of State for India and the only Jewish member of the British Cabinet....He questioned the credentials of the Zionist Organization to speak for all Jews.
    ...Three features of the Balfour Declaration draw attention. One is that evidently it was not in accordance with the spirit of the pledges of independence given to the Arabs both before and after it was issued.

    ...
    Allied policy on Palestine
    ...The decision of the Allied Powers to support Zionist aims drew protest from Palestinians. Citizens of Nazareth reminded the British Administrator in Jerusalem: "In view of the declaration of the decision of the Peace Conference regarding the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, we hereby beg to declare that we are the owners of this country and the land is our national home ..."
    ...
    The drafting of the Palestine Mandate
    ... [Lord] Curzon [British Foreign Secretary] commented: "...I don't want a Hebrew State."
    ...When the question of the British Mandate over Palestine was discussed in Parliament, it became clear that opinion in the House of Lords was strongly opposed to the Balfour policy...The House of Lords voted to repeal the Balfour Declaration, but a similar motion was defeated in the House of Commons and the British Government formally accepted the Mandate.
    ...
    The question of the validity of the Mandate
    It is clear that by failing to consult the Palestinian people in the decision on the future of their country, the victorious Powers ignored not only the principle of self-determination that they themselves had endorsed, but also the provisions of Article 22 of the League's Covenant....A strict policy of what in today's terms would be described as racial discrimination was maintained by the Zionist Organization in this rapid advance towards the "national home". ... The drive of political zionism to establish a settler State in Palestine was met by violent resistance from the Palestinians, and this situation simmered until it boiled over in 1936.
    ...
    The Peel [Royal] Commission Report
    "... When at last they came before us, headed by the Mufti of Jerusalem...he summed up the Arab demands as... 'the abandonment of the experiment of the Jewish national home' ... Palestine Arab nationalism is inextricably interwoven with antagonism to the Jews....[A]s the [national] home has grown, the fear has grown with it that, if and when self-government is conceded, it may not be national in the Arab sense, but government by a Jewish majority. That is why it is difficult to be an Arab patriot and not to hate the Jews...."
    Partition was unacceptable to the Palestinians, whose struggle for self-determination had brought the British Government to admit the unworkability of the Mandate. The rebellion flared up again, lasting until 1939. The Arab Higher Committee formally reasserted the right of Palestinians to full independence in the whole of Palestine, and the replacement of the Mandate by a treaty between Great Britain and an independent Palestine.
    ...
    Palestine in 1939
    ... The Palestinians had sensed that only through violence could they force recognition of their inherent rights. ...
    The Jewish response

    ...
    The Palestinian rebellion, the Royal Commission's report and the 1939 White Paper's policies constituted a series of reversals to the aim of political Zionism to establish a settler state in Palestine.
    ...
    The London Conference
    ...The new London Conference met from September 1946 to February 1947...The Arab countries attending...presented to the British Government their own proposals, with the following principal features: (a) Palestine would be a unitary State with a permanent Arab majority... Faced with this situation, Great Britain decided to relinquish its mandatory role and to hand over the Palestine problem, created over three decades by the Balfour Declaration and the Palestine Mandate, to the United Nations. On 18 February 1947, the Foreign Secretary stated in the House of Commons:
    "His Majesty's Government have ... been faced with an irreconcilable conflict of principles...For the Jews, the essential point of principle is the creation of a sovereign Jewish State. For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine.
    ...
    The transformation of Mandated Palestine
    ... Ironically, the Palestinian Arabs were to suffer an experience similar to the Jews - a diaspora.
    ...
    Arnold J. Toynbee...wrote in 1968:
    "... The reason why the State of Israel exists today and why today 1,500,000 Palestinian Arabs are refugees is that, for 30 years, Jewish immigration was imposed on the Palestinian Arabs by British military power until the immigrants were sufficiently numerous and sufficiently well-armed to be able to fend for themselves with tanks and planes of their own. The tragedy in Palestine is not just a local one; it is a tragedy for the world, because it is an injustice that is a menace to the world's peace."

    ********

This lengthy UN pseudo-history lesson ends with the anti-semitic historiography of Toynbee.