Netanyahu to US "Don't ever second guess me on Hamas again"

[The Magistrate]

176. It Is An Exercise In Cherry-Picking, Sir

And can only be taken for a useful overview either by someone new to the game, or by someone who made up their mind well before encountering it, and finds it confirms their prior conclusions.

To take just some aspects of but one question, the Partition of '47.

This is presented as something arising de novo in the General Assembly, the result of U.S. pressure.

The first proposal for partition of the Mandate territory came from the Peel Commission before WWII, enquiring into the cause and course of the Arab Revolt of '36 ( which carried on into 1939 ). Its map was somewhat more favorable to the Arabs, and was both precedent and basis for the eventual United Nations decision. The Peel map was accepted in principle by the leading Zionist bodies, though they certainly hoped to alter it were it actually implemented under English authority. Pressure regarding votes on the Partition came from both sides, and threats of war and pogrom were a staple of opposition from Arab states. One of the things leading to both U.S. pressure for the Partition, and for the failure of Arab efforts to prevent it, was the close identification of Arab Nationalist leadership with the Axis powers before and during the Second World War. That this was in part an outgrowth of anti-colonialist resentment against England and France, applying the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' principal, was not considered much of an excuse, and the open record of the Mufti's close collaboration with Hitler, and the pogrom accompanying the 'Golden Square' coup in Baghdad early in 1941, gave it considerable bite. That governments in most European countries were at this time in the hands of people who had resisted the Nazis, even under occupation, was a major factor in attitudes regarding this.

I could go on at greater length, but as I said above, I really have neither time nor inclination to present a point by point rebuttal of the thing. It is what it is, an exercise in cherry-picking and distortion by omission and de-contextualizing and anachronistic presentation, in favor of one side of a dispute.