United Nations must trash false information on Arab-Jewish conflict
The United Nations Study titled “The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917-1988” (“Study”) has coughed up yet another piece of false information following that exposed in my last article – which indicates increasingly that the United Nations has been complicit in disseminating false information on the Arab-Jewish conflict for almost the last forty years…writes David Singer.The Study was published in June 1978 by the Division for Palestinian Rights of the United Nations Secretariat (DPRUNS) for, and under the guidance of, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIARPP)
I had only reached the third paragraph of the 275 page Study when the following statement caught my attention:
“The decision on the Mandate [for Palestine] did not take into account the wishes of the people of Palestine”
I could scarcely believe this dishonest statement had actually originated in a United Nations official publication – especially as the evidence contradicting this falsehood was sitting in the United Nations own archives.
That evidence comprises:
- Meetings of the Palestine Arab Delegation (Delegation) with the recently appointed Secretary of State for the Colonies – Winston Churchill – on 12, 22 and 23 August 1921
- Letters from 21 February 1922 to 23 June 1922 between the Delegation and the Secretary of State for the Colonies during which the Delegation was housed in the Hotel Cecil in London.
The letters disclose that:
- The Delegation failed to persuade Britain to abandon the Mandate for Palestine providing for the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine.
- The British Government had adopted a fresh definition of policy to finally allay the Delegation’s apprehensions as to the scope and purport of British policy.
The Study’s failure to disclose this evidence is breathtaking.
DPRUNS and CEIARPP clearly sought to hide this evidence to create the false impression that the Palestinian Arabs had been unfairly treated and never been consulted in contrast to the Zionists who had.
This false statement has been repeated verbatim as gospel on many web sites including:
- “politics.ie” – which claims to be one of Ireland’s leading politics and current affairs discussion websites with more than 600,000 visitors a month attracting one of the most engaged, respected and influential politics and current affairs communities.
- “Academia.edu” – which claims to be a platform for academics to share research papers and to accelerate the world’s research with 50,841,190 academics having signed up adding 18,234,570 papers and 2,051,915 research interests – attracting over 36 million unique visitors a month.
- “iasexamportal.com” – which describes itself as “India’s Largest Online Community for IAS, UPSC, Civil Services Exam Aspirants.”
- “UK essays” – which claims to use over 4,000 thoroughly vetted experts with the qualifications and experience to write you the best possible essay.
- Many virulent Jew-hating and anti-Israel websites that I will not dignify by naming.
False statements such as this take on a life of their own and can influence people in forming their views of the Arab-Jewish conflict. That this disgraceful example should have emanated from the United Nations is outrageous.
DPRUNS and CEIARPP were clearly engaged in creating a false Arab narrative from the Study’s very inception – based on fiction – not fact.
Surely after almost 40 years of this intellectual fraud – the UN Secretariat needs to clean up its act, thoroughly review the Study and correct such errors.
The damage has been done, minds and opinions have been poisoned but the United Nations cannot continue to lend its name to this Study in its current form.
United Nations Secretary General – António Guterres – over to you.
David Singer is a Sydney Lawyer and Foundation Member of the International Analysts Network
Dear David,
Your article interesting article raises many vital points. Noting the falsehood of lack of consultation with Arabs outlines yet another example of bias and treachery by the UN…one of many with respect to Israel.
However in the case of the example discussed in your article, it seems clear that all Arabs, both those within the Mandate area – ie those who now call themselves Palestinians and identify as different from those are now considered Jordanian – as well as all other Arabs opposed the establishment of a Jewish State.
Lies by UN are a disgrace and you are to be commended for in exposing them. It would be interesting to find out as ‘a parallel’ to the issues you raise:
1. in view of there not having been a Palestinian political entity till 1965, who or what group represented ‘Palestinians’ in consultations in regard to the future of the Mandate in the period from about 1914 to 1965 when the PLO emerged,
2. what consultation with ‘Palestinians’ was held when:the Brits brought in a Hashemite to become their king on approx 80% of Palestinian land (and if consultations were had, who represented ‘Palestinians’…ie Palestinian Arab and Palestinian Jew alike)
3. what the response was from Palestinians to the setting up of a Hashemite as their king.
Regards,
Bella