I was digging around a site called Newspaper Finder (wow did I come across a mountain of info). But...I found a pamphlet from January 1946 called "Truth About Palestine."
It was written by the Christian Council on Palestine, a group of nearly three thousand mostly Protestant clergy, with a number of Catholics too.
Reinhold Niebuhr was the treasurer. Paul Tillich signed it. So did Norman Vincent Peale.
It's a direct, point-by-point rebuttal to three anti-Zionist church statements that had circulated the year before. Some of what's in it lines up almost exactly with arguments still being made today.
Here's what stood out:
Here's what stood out:
The Hussein-McMahon correspondence, the letters people cite to claim Britain "twice promised"
Palestine to both Arabs and Jews, never mentions Palestine by name.
McMahon himself said so on the record in 1922 and again in 1937.
Palestine to both Arabs and Jews, never mentions Palestine by name.
McMahon himself said so on the record in 1922 and again in 1937.
Emir Feisal, who led the Arab delegation at the Paris Peace Conference, signed an agreement with Chaim Weizmann in 1919 recognizing the Balfour Declaration and agreeing to encourage large-scale Jewish immigration. He only backed away from it after the extremist wing of Arab nationalism gained ground.
Lloyd George, who was prime minister when the Balfour Declaration was issued, said flatly that the Cabinet always understood it to mean an eventual Jewish state, not just a cultural or spiritual center. Churchill said the same thing about his own 1922 White Paper.
The Arab population of Palestine doubled between the 1920s and 1945, going from about 600,000 to 1.2 million, largely because Jewish development lowered the death rate and raised wages. That's a strange result if the story is supposed to be Arab displacement.
Out of thousands of Arab families who claimed to have been made landless by Jewish land purchases, British investigators validated 664 total.
Land reclamation by Jewish settlers added farmable acreage to the country, it didn't shrink it.
Land reclamation by Jewish settlers added farmable acreage to the country, it didn't shrink it.
The Mufti of Jerusalem, the most powerful Arab political leader in Palestine at the time, fled the country and helped organize a pro-Nazi coup in Iraq.
He later worked directly with Hitler.
The church documents being rebutted don't mention this.
He later worked directly with Hitler.
The church documents being rebutted don't mention this.
A 1945 poll by Elmo Roper found about 80 percent of American Jews supported a Jewish state.
The idea that American Jewry was deeply split on Zionism was already a manufactured talking point by 1946.
The idea that American Jewry was deeply split on Zionism was already a manufactured talking point by 1946.
The official Jewish Commonwealth proposal on the table at the time included full legal equality for non-Jews, universal suffrage, and local control of Muslim and Christian holy sites by their own communities.
That's the opposite of the "theocratic, racial state" critics claimed it would be.
That's the opposite of the "theocratic, racial state" critics claimed it would be.
Worth reading as a primary source, whichever side of the current argument you're on.
It shows how old these exact talking points are, and how they were being argued over inside the Christian church itself, not just between governments.
It shows how old these exact talking points are, and how they were being argued over inside the Christian church itself, not just between governments.
Archive link: archive.org/details/ldpd_11077604_000
We aren't witnessing a new debate.
We’re watching a rerun of a script written decades ago, only updated for social media.
When modern institutions claim to be "unbiased," they’re usually just digging up the same tired myths and convenient silences that were being dismantled before the state of Israel even existed.
The fact that the same arguments survive eighty years later proves they aren't meant to shed light, they’re meant to lock us in the dark.
We’re watching a rerun of a script written decades ago, only updated for social media.
When modern institutions claim to be "unbiased," they’re usually just digging up the same tired myths and convenient silences that were being dismantled before the state of Israel even existed.
The fact that the same arguments survive eighty years later proves they aren't meant to shed light, they’re meant to lock us in the dark.
Comments
Post a Comment