6 nov 2016
This month marks the 99th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration and the beginning in earnest of preparations for next year’s centenary.
Israel and its supporters are gearing up for a celebration of what they see as an historic document that underpins the state’s legitimacy. Palestinians and their allies, meanwhile, are seeking an apology from Britain for an injustice whose impact is still felt today.
The Balfour Declaration was a letter dated 2 November 1917, sent by British foreign secretary Lord Arthur Balfour on behalf of the government to Walter Rothschild, for it to be shared with the Zionist Federation. The letter included the following, 67-word statement:
“His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
This past week, the Israeli ambassador to the UK, Mark Regev, marked the 99th anniversary by releasing balloons into the London sky. Organisations including the Board of Deputies of British Jews, meanwhile, are part of an initiative that thanks the British government for having recognised “the longing of the Jewish people to re-establish its national homeland in the land of Israel".
However, is the Balfour Declaration honestly something that Israel and its advocates should want to draw attention to? I would suggest not.
What self-determination?
It is a reminder, firstly, that the Zionist movement was only able to advance its goal of establishing a "Jewish state" in Palestine with the support of a colonial power. Though tensions increased between the British Mandate authorities and the Zionist movement, the project was only viable in the first instance thanks to the agreement, support and protection of the British Empire.
Today, the State of Israel is able to persist in systematic violations of international law, including a five-decade old military occupation, because of the backing, again, of powerful Western allies – especially, of course, the US. Israel’s diplomatic, economic, and military "shield" remains vital to the Israeli government’s ability to persist in its denial of Palestinian rights.
The Balfour Declaration is also a reminder that, in contrast to Israel’s insistence today that Zionism merely equates to "Jewish self-determination," the creation of a "Jewish state" in Palestine directly contradicted the principle of self-determination.
At the time of Balfour’s letter, Jews constituted approximately 10 percent of Palestine’s population (at the time of the first Zionist Congress in 1897, that figure was 4 percent). Even by 1947, Palestinian Arabs were the easy majority – two-thirds of the population.
Note how in 1919, two years after the Balfour Declaration, the Zionist Organisation in London warned that the problem with democracy was that it “too commonly means majority rule without regard to diversities of types or stages of civilisation or differences of quality".
Thus “if the crude arithmetical conception of democracy were to be applied now or at some early stage in the future to Palestinian conditions, the majority that would rule would be the Arab majority, and the task of establishing and developing a great Jewish Palestine would be infinitely more difficult".
As the Israeli historian Tom Segev has stated by way of comment: “The problem at the heart of the Zionist claim was rarely articulated so clearly: the Zionist dream ran counter to the principles of democracy.”
Unsavoury friends
Finally, the Balfour Declaration is a reminder that the Zionist movement and the State of Israel have always had to rely on some rather unsavoury friends.
Balfour, as historian Jason Tomes has described, was a fan of the notoriously anti-Semitic second wife of Richard Wagner, Cosima Wagner, even telling Israel’s first president, Chaim Weizmann, how “he shared many of her anti-Semitic ideas.”
On another occasion, Tomes recounts: “[Balfour] complained of a pompous dinner with the Sassoon family, where ‘the Hebrews were in an actual majority’ – ‘I began to understand the point of view of those who object to alien immigration!’” Charming.
Even (or perhaps unsurprisingly) Balfour’s so-called "philosemitism" was suspect; the Jewish people’s ranks contained, he said, “more than their proportionate share of the world’s supply of men distinguished in science and philosophy, literature and art, medicine, politics and law. (Of finance and business I need say nothing.)"
Indeed, the only Jewish member of the British cabinet at the time, Edwin Samuel Montagu, was passionately opposed to the Balfour Declaration and laid out his reasons for doing so in a memorandum to his colleagues. It would be an instructive irony if Balfour’s only Jewish colleague in the cabinet was conveniently scrubbed from Israel’s celebration of the centenary.
Similarly, today Israel draws on support from the likes of the Christian right, especially in the US, and including those who believe that Jews must be converted in order to be saved. Israel is also increasingly grateful for the role of Islamophobic conservatives and extreme right-wingers in both North America and Europe, who whitewash their past and present bigotry with support for Israel.
So while the British government is unlikely to issue an apology for the Balfour Declaration, even its celebration provides a good opportunity for some uncomfortable home truths.
- Ben White is the author of Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide and Palestinians in Israel: Segregation, Discrimination and Democracy. He is a writer for Middle East Monitor, and his articles have been published by Al Jazeera, al-Araby, Huffington Post, The Electronic Intifada, The Guardian’s Comment is free, and more.
This article was published in the Middle East Eye website.
Israel and its supporters are gearing up for a celebration of what they see as an historic document that underpins the state’s legitimacy. Palestinians and their allies, meanwhile, are seeking an apology from Britain for an injustice whose impact is still felt today.
The Balfour Declaration was a letter dated 2 November 1917, sent by British foreign secretary Lord Arthur Balfour on behalf of the government to Walter Rothschild, for it to be shared with the Zionist Federation. The letter included the following, 67-word statement:
“His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
This past week, the Israeli ambassador to the UK, Mark Regev, marked the 99th anniversary by releasing balloons into the London sky. Organisations including the Board of Deputies of British Jews, meanwhile, are part of an initiative that thanks the British government for having recognised “the longing of the Jewish people to re-establish its national homeland in the land of Israel".
However, is the Balfour Declaration honestly something that Israel and its advocates should want to draw attention to? I would suggest not.
What self-determination?
It is a reminder, firstly, that the Zionist movement was only able to advance its goal of establishing a "Jewish state" in Palestine with the support of a colonial power. Though tensions increased between the British Mandate authorities and the Zionist movement, the project was only viable in the first instance thanks to the agreement, support and protection of the British Empire.
Today, the State of Israel is able to persist in systematic violations of international law, including a five-decade old military occupation, because of the backing, again, of powerful Western allies – especially, of course, the US. Israel’s diplomatic, economic, and military "shield" remains vital to the Israeli government’s ability to persist in its denial of Palestinian rights.
The Balfour Declaration is also a reminder that, in contrast to Israel’s insistence today that Zionism merely equates to "Jewish self-determination," the creation of a "Jewish state" in Palestine directly contradicted the principle of self-determination.
At the time of Balfour’s letter, Jews constituted approximately 10 percent of Palestine’s population (at the time of the first Zionist Congress in 1897, that figure was 4 percent). Even by 1947, Palestinian Arabs were the easy majority – two-thirds of the population.
Note how in 1919, two years after the Balfour Declaration, the Zionist Organisation in London warned that the problem with democracy was that it “too commonly means majority rule without regard to diversities of types or stages of civilisation or differences of quality".
Thus “if the crude arithmetical conception of democracy were to be applied now or at some early stage in the future to Palestinian conditions, the majority that would rule would be the Arab majority, and the task of establishing and developing a great Jewish Palestine would be infinitely more difficult".
As the Israeli historian Tom Segev has stated by way of comment: “The problem at the heart of the Zionist claim was rarely articulated so clearly: the Zionist dream ran counter to the principles of democracy.”
Unsavoury friends
Finally, the Balfour Declaration is a reminder that the Zionist movement and the State of Israel have always had to rely on some rather unsavoury friends.
Balfour, as historian Jason Tomes has described, was a fan of the notoriously anti-Semitic second wife of Richard Wagner, Cosima Wagner, even telling Israel’s first president, Chaim Weizmann, how “he shared many of her anti-Semitic ideas.”
On another occasion, Tomes recounts: “[Balfour] complained of a pompous dinner with the Sassoon family, where ‘the Hebrews were in an actual majority’ – ‘I began to understand the point of view of those who object to alien immigration!’” Charming.
Even (or perhaps unsurprisingly) Balfour’s so-called "philosemitism" was suspect; the Jewish people’s ranks contained, he said, “more than their proportionate share of the world’s supply of men distinguished in science and philosophy, literature and art, medicine, politics and law. (Of finance and business I need say nothing.)"
Indeed, the only Jewish member of the British cabinet at the time, Edwin Samuel Montagu, was passionately opposed to the Balfour Declaration and laid out his reasons for doing so in a memorandum to his colleagues. It would be an instructive irony if Balfour’s only Jewish colleague in the cabinet was conveniently scrubbed from Israel’s celebration of the centenary.
Similarly, today Israel draws on support from the likes of the Christian right, especially in the US, and including those who believe that Jews must be converted in order to be saved. Israel is also increasingly grateful for the role of Islamophobic conservatives and extreme right-wingers in both North America and Europe, who whitewash their past and present bigotry with support for Israel.
So while the British government is unlikely to issue an apology for the Balfour Declaration, even its celebration provides a good opportunity for some uncomfortable home truths.
- Ben White is the author of Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide and Palestinians in Israel: Segregation, Discrimination and Democracy. He is a writer for Middle East Monitor, and his articles have been published by Al Jazeera, al-Araby, Huffington Post, The Electronic Intifada, The Guardian’s Comment is free, and more.
This article was published in the Middle East Eye website.
3 nov 2016
By Ramzy Baroud
Last July, the Palestinian Authority took the unexpected, although belated step of seeking Arab backing in suing Britain over the Balfour Declaration. That “declaration” was the first ever explicit commitment made by Britain, and the West in general, to establish a Jewish homeland atop an existing Palestinian homeland.
It is too early to tell whether the Arab League will heed the Palestinian call, or if the PA will even follow through, especially considering the latter has the habit of making too many proclamations backed by little or no action.
However, it seems that the next year will witness a significant tug of war regarding the Balfour Declaration, the 100th anniversary of which will be commemorated on 2 November 2017.
But who is Balfour, what is the Balfour Declaration and why does all of this matter today?
Britain’s Foreign Secretary from late 1916, Arthur James Balfour, pledged Palestine to another people. That promise was made on 2 November 1917 on behalf of the British government in the form of a letter sent to the leader of the Jewish community in Britain, Walter Rothschild.
At the time, Britain was not even in control of Palestine, which was still part of the Ottoman Empire. Either way, Palestine was never Balfour’s to so casually transfer to anyone else. His letter read:
“His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
He concluded: “I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.”
Balfour was hardly acting on his own. True, the declaration bears his name, yet, in reality, he was a loyal agent of an Empire with massive geopolitical designs, not only concerning Palestine alone, but with Palestine as part of a larger Arab landscape.
Only a year earlier, another sinister document was introduced, albeit secretly. It was endorsed by another top British diplomat, Mark Sykes and, on behalf of France, by François Georges-Picot. The Russians were informed of the agreement, as they too had received a piece of the Ottoman cake.
The document indicated that, once the Ottomans were soundly defeated, their territories, including Palestine, would be split among the prospective victorious parties.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement, also known as the “Asia Minor Agreement”, was signed in secret 100 years ago, two years into World War I. It signified the brutal nature of colonial powers that rarely associated land and resources with people who lived upon or owned them.
The centerpiece of the agreement was a map that was marked with straight lines by a China graph pencil. The map largely determined the fate of the Arabs, dividing them in accordance with various haphazard assumptions of tribal and sectarian lines.
The improvised map consisted not only of lines but also colours, along with language that attested to the fact that the two countries viewed the Arab region purely on materialistic terms, without paying the slightest attention to the possible repercussions of slicing up entire civilizations with a multifarious history of co-operation and conflict.
The Sykes-Picot negotiations were completed in March 1916 and, although official, were secretly signed on 19 May 1916.
WWI concluded on 11 November 1918, after which the division of the Ottoman Empire began in earnest.
British and French mandates were extended over divided Arab entities, while Palestine was granted to the Zionist movement a year later, when Balfour conveyed the British government’s promise, sealing the fate of Palestinians to a life of perpetual war and turmoil.
Rarely was British-Western hypocrisy and complete disregard for the national aspiration of any other nation on full display as in the case of Palestine. Beginning with the first wave of Zionist Jewish migration to Palestine in 1882, European countries helped facilitate the movement of illegal settlers and resources, where the establishment of many colonies, large and small, was afoot.
So when Balfour sent his letter to Rothschild, the idea of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was very much plausible.
Still, many supercilious promises were being made to the Arabs during the Great War years, as the Arab leadership sided with the British in their war against the Ottoman Empire. Arabs were promised instant independence, including that of the Palestinians.
When the intentions of the British and their rapport with the Zionists became too apparent, Palestinians rebelled, marking a rebellion that has never ceased 99 years later, and highlighting the horrific consequences of British colonialism and the eventual complete Zionist takeover of Palestine which is still felt after all of these years.
Paltry attempts to pacify Palestinian anger were to no avail, especially after the League of Nations Council in July 1922 approved the terms of the British Mandate over Palestine – which was originally granted to Britain in April 1920 – without consulting the Palestinians at all. In fact, Palestinians would disappear from the British and international radar, only to reappear as negligible rioters, troublemakers and obstacles to the joint British-Zionist colonial concoctions.
Despite occasional assurances to the contrary, the British intention of ensuring the establishment of an exclusively Jewish state in Palestine was becoming clearer with time. The Balfour Declaration was not merely an aberration, but had, indeed, set the stage for the full-scale ethnic cleansing that followed, three decades later.
In fact, that history remains in constant replay: the Zionists claimed Palestine and renamed it “Israel”; the British continue to support them, although never ceasing to pay lip-service to the Arabs; and the Palestinian people remain a nation that is geographically fragmented between refugee camps, the diaspora, militarily occupied, or treated as second class citizens in a country upon which their ancestors dwelt since time immemorial.
While Balfour cannot be blamed for all the misfortunes that have befallen Palestinians since he communicated his brief, but infamous letter, the notion that his “promise” embodied – that of complete disregard of the aspirations and rights of the Palestinian Arab people – that very letter is handed from one generation of British diplomats to the next, in the same way that Palestinian resistance to colonialism has and continues to spread across generations.
That injustice continues, thus the perpetuation of the conflict. What the British, the early Zionists, the Americans and subsequent Israeli governments failed to understand, and continue to ignore at their own peril, is that there can be no peace without justice and equality in Palestine; and that Palestinians will continue to resist, as long as the reasons that inspired their rebellion nearly a century ago, remain in place.
– Dr. Ramzy Baroud has been writing about the Middle East for over 20 years. He is an internationally-syndicated columnist, a media consultant, an author of several books and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com.
Last July, the Palestinian Authority took the unexpected, although belated step of seeking Arab backing in suing Britain over the Balfour Declaration. That “declaration” was the first ever explicit commitment made by Britain, and the West in general, to establish a Jewish homeland atop an existing Palestinian homeland.
It is too early to tell whether the Arab League will heed the Palestinian call, or if the PA will even follow through, especially considering the latter has the habit of making too many proclamations backed by little or no action.
However, it seems that the next year will witness a significant tug of war regarding the Balfour Declaration, the 100th anniversary of which will be commemorated on 2 November 2017.
But who is Balfour, what is the Balfour Declaration and why does all of this matter today?
Britain’s Foreign Secretary from late 1916, Arthur James Balfour, pledged Palestine to another people. That promise was made on 2 November 1917 on behalf of the British government in the form of a letter sent to the leader of the Jewish community in Britain, Walter Rothschild.
At the time, Britain was not even in control of Palestine, which was still part of the Ottoman Empire. Either way, Palestine was never Balfour’s to so casually transfer to anyone else. His letter read:
“His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
He concluded: “I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.”
Balfour was hardly acting on his own. True, the declaration bears his name, yet, in reality, he was a loyal agent of an Empire with massive geopolitical designs, not only concerning Palestine alone, but with Palestine as part of a larger Arab landscape.
Only a year earlier, another sinister document was introduced, albeit secretly. It was endorsed by another top British diplomat, Mark Sykes and, on behalf of France, by François Georges-Picot. The Russians were informed of the agreement, as they too had received a piece of the Ottoman cake.
The document indicated that, once the Ottomans were soundly defeated, their territories, including Palestine, would be split among the prospective victorious parties.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement, also known as the “Asia Minor Agreement”, was signed in secret 100 years ago, two years into World War I. It signified the brutal nature of colonial powers that rarely associated land and resources with people who lived upon or owned them.
The centerpiece of the agreement was a map that was marked with straight lines by a China graph pencil. The map largely determined the fate of the Arabs, dividing them in accordance with various haphazard assumptions of tribal and sectarian lines.
The improvised map consisted not only of lines but also colours, along with language that attested to the fact that the two countries viewed the Arab region purely on materialistic terms, without paying the slightest attention to the possible repercussions of slicing up entire civilizations with a multifarious history of co-operation and conflict.
The Sykes-Picot negotiations were completed in March 1916 and, although official, were secretly signed on 19 May 1916.
WWI concluded on 11 November 1918, after which the division of the Ottoman Empire began in earnest.
British and French mandates were extended over divided Arab entities, while Palestine was granted to the Zionist movement a year later, when Balfour conveyed the British government’s promise, sealing the fate of Palestinians to a life of perpetual war and turmoil.
Rarely was British-Western hypocrisy and complete disregard for the national aspiration of any other nation on full display as in the case of Palestine. Beginning with the first wave of Zionist Jewish migration to Palestine in 1882, European countries helped facilitate the movement of illegal settlers and resources, where the establishment of many colonies, large and small, was afoot.
So when Balfour sent his letter to Rothschild, the idea of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was very much plausible.
Still, many supercilious promises were being made to the Arabs during the Great War years, as the Arab leadership sided with the British in their war against the Ottoman Empire. Arabs were promised instant independence, including that of the Palestinians.
When the intentions of the British and their rapport with the Zionists became too apparent, Palestinians rebelled, marking a rebellion that has never ceased 99 years later, and highlighting the horrific consequences of British colonialism and the eventual complete Zionist takeover of Palestine which is still felt after all of these years.
Paltry attempts to pacify Palestinian anger were to no avail, especially after the League of Nations Council in July 1922 approved the terms of the British Mandate over Palestine – which was originally granted to Britain in April 1920 – without consulting the Palestinians at all. In fact, Palestinians would disappear from the British and international radar, only to reappear as negligible rioters, troublemakers and obstacles to the joint British-Zionist colonial concoctions.
Despite occasional assurances to the contrary, the British intention of ensuring the establishment of an exclusively Jewish state in Palestine was becoming clearer with time. The Balfour Declaration was not merely an aberration, but had, indeed, set the stage for the full-scale ethnic cleansing that followed, three decades later.
In fact, that history remains in constant replay: the Zionists claimed Palestine and renamed it “Israel”; the British continue to support them, although never ceasing to pay lip-service to the Arabs; and the Palestinian people remain a nation that is geographically fragmented between refugee camps, the diaspora, militarily occupied, or treated as second class citizens in a country upon which their ancestors dwelt since time immemorial.
While Balfour cannot be blamed for all the misfortunes that have befallen Palestinians since he communicated his brief, but infamous letter, the notion that his “promise” embodied – that of complete disregard of the aspirations and rights of the Palestinian Arab people – that very letter is handed from one generation of British diplomats to the next, in the same way that Palestinian resistance to colonialism has and continues to spread across generations.
That injustice continues, thus the perpetuation of the conflict. What the British, the early Zionists, the Americans and subsequent Israeli governments failed to understand, and continue to ignore at their own peril, is that there can be no peace without justice and equality in Palestine; and that Palestinians will continue to resist, as long as the reasons that inspired their rebellion nearly a century ago, remain in place.
– Dr. Ramzy Baroud has been writing about the Middle East for over 20 years. He is an internationally-syndicated columnist, a media consultant, an author of several books and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com.
The Hamas Movement has renewed its vow to remain adherent to the right of return, to continue resisting the occupation and not to cede an iota of the Palestinian soil.
“Our right to the entire Palestinian soil is sacred, and cannot be abolished by a criminal’s promise to another criminal or by any power regardless of its superiority,” Hamas stated in a press release on the 99th anniversary of the Balfour declaration.
“The Balfour declaration was the gateway to injustice, criminality and abuse against the Palestinian people, their holy sites and rights,” it added.
It emphasized that it would never recognize the existence of Israel on the Palestinian land or any peace agreement with it, and would not allow anyone to relinquish the Palestinian people’s right to return to their homes.
“Our right to the entire Palestinian soil is sacred, and cannot be abolished by a criminal’s promise to another criminal or by any power regardless of its superiority,” Hamas stated in a press release on the 99th anniversary of the Balfour declaration.
“The Balfour declaration was the gateway to injustice, criminality and abuse against the Palestinian people, their holy sites and rights,” it added.
It emphasized that it would never recognize the existence of Israel on the Palestinian land or any peace agreement with it, and would not allow anyone to relinquish the Palestinian people’s right to return to their homes.
2 nov 2016
The Jordanian security forces suppressed Wednesday afternoon a sit-in organized outside the British Embassy in Jordanian capital Amman in protest against Balfour Declaration.
The protesters held banners reading: “The Balfour Declaration 1917 is an ill-famed promise from those who do not own to those who do not deserve”.
A movement called the Balfour Declaration Centenary Campaign had earlier urged for action outside the British Embassy in Amman marking the 99th anniversary of the declaration.
The 2nd of November marks the centenary of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which began the still-ongoing occupation of Palestine and sowed the seeds of an endless nightmare for the Palestinian people, both those who were forced to flee at gunpoint and those who have managed to remain in the shredded remains of their homeland under Israel’s brutal military occupation.
The protesters held banners reading: “The Balfour Declaration 1917 is an ill-famed promise from those who do not own to those who do not deserve”.
A movement called the Balfour Declaration Centenary Campaign had earlier urged for action outside the British Embassy in Amman marking the 99th anniversary of the declaration.
The 2nd of November marks the centenary of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which began the still-ongoing occupation of Palestine and sowed the seeds of an endless nightmare for the Palestinian people, both those who were forced to flee at gunpoint and those who have managed to remain in the shredded remains of their homeland under Israel’s brutal military occupation.
2 june 2016
A 15-year-old British-Palestinian schoolgirl faced backlash after a prominent public speaking competition for youth in the United Kingdom for fervently speaking up for the Palestinian cause.
Leanne Mohamed recently won the Redbridge Regional Final of Jack Petchey’s Speak Out Challenge in London with a moving speech about the injustices Palestinians are forced to endure as a result of Israeli occupation.
“I am Palestinian and I am human, I shouldn’t have to remind the world of that,” Mohamed said in the speech that ended with an earnest call to “free Palestine,” accompanied by her waving a Palestinian flag.
Following her win, the video of Mohamed’s speech, which went viral and attracted both online support and abuse, was temporarily removed from both the competition’s official website and the official YouTube channel of the organization that runs it.
In addition, the organizations that run the competition, Speakers Trust and the Jack Petchey Foundation, did not choose Mohamed as one of the 15 winning regional finalists who will progress to the Grand Final, the national stage of the competition.
In a joint statement they released Tuesday following a whirlwind of online uproar, which included the launch of an online petition and the trending hashtag “Let Leanne Speak,” both organizations refuted the claims that their actions were because of Mohamed’s topic.
They claimed that the video was removed “following vile and hateful comments posted online” in order to “protect Leanne by temporarily suspending the regional videos,” saying that Speakers Trust is “a small charity without the capacity to moderate comments 24 hours a day.”
All 37 talented Regional Final champions were entered into the semi-final on Saturday 21st May. Only 15 of these can reach the Grand Final stage.
A panel of judges selected the top 15 speeches without any external influence or input and prior to any of the issues that emerged this weekend,” the statement added, saying that each speech was “judged on its own merits.”
However, prior to the statement’s release, an email Speakers Trust CEO Julie Holness sent to an infamous anti-Palestinian blogger, who had contacted the organization complaining about Mohamed’s speech, was made public and told a different story.
In the email, Holness said that the speech violated two fundamental rules of the competition: “The speech must have a positive and uplifting message,” and that “a speaker should never inflame or offend the audience or insult others and this, by definition, means that propaganda is ruled out absolutely from the outset.”
Titled “Birds not Bombs,” Mohamed’s speech, which was re-uploaded to YouTube and Vimeo by a variety of sources, started by comparing the children’s game hide and seek to the “life or death” alternative of the game that Palestinian children must play.
Mohamed said: “How would you feel if you were awoken every morning by bombs and not birds? How would you feel if you didn’t even feel safe in your own home? How would you feel if you witnessed your own family die in front of you?
If for 68 years they bombarded your land, took away your genuine human rights and killed your families and children, how would you react?”
“Palestine is my country, my land and my home, their pain is my pain, and their freedom is my freedom,” she said, concluding her speech with a famous Nelson Mandela quote, in which he spoke of Palestinian freedom.
Leanne Mohamed recently won the Redbridge Regional Final of Jack Petchey’s Speak Out Challenge in London with a moving speech about the injustices Palestinians are forced to endure as a result of Israeli occupation.
“I am Palestinian and I am human, I shouldn’t have to remind the world of that,” Mohamed said in the speech that ended with an earnest call to “free Palestine,” accompanied by her waving a Palestinian flag.
Following her win, the video of Mohamed’s speech, which went viral and attracted both online support and abuse, was temporarily removed from both the competition’s official website and the official YouTube channel of the organization that runs it.
In addition, the organizations that run the competition, Speakers Trust and the Jack Petchey Foundation, did not choose Mohamed as one of the 15 winning regional finalists who will progress to the Grand Final, the national stage of the competition.
In a joint statement they released Tuesday following a whirlwind of online uproar, which included the launch of an online petition and the trending hashtag “Let Leanne Speak,” both organizations refuted the claims that their actions were because of Mohamed’s topic.
They claimed that the video was removed “following vile and hateful comments posted online” in order to “protect Leanne by temporarily suspending the regional videos,” saying that Speakers Trust is “a small charity without the capacity to moderate comments 24 hours a day.”
All 37 talented Regional Final champions were entered into the semi-final on Saturday 21st May. Only 15 of these can reach the Grand Final stage.
A panel of judges selected the top 15 speeches without any external influence or input and prior to any of the issues that emerged this weekend,” the statement added, saying that each speech was “judged on its own merits.”
However, prior to the statement’s release, an email Speakers Trust CEO Julie Holness sent to an infamous anti-Palestinian blogger, who had contacted the organization complaining about Mohamed’s speech, was made public and told a different story.
In the email, Holness said that the speech violated two fundamental rules of the competition: “The speech must have a positive and uplifting message,” and that “a speaker should never inflame or offend the audience or insult others and this, by definition, means that propaganda is ruled out absolutely from the outset.”
Titled “Birds not Bombs,” Mohamed’s speech, which was re-uploaded to YouTube and Vimeo by a variety of sources, started by comparing the children’s game hide and seek to the “life or death” alternative of the game that Palestinian children must play.
Mohamed said: “How would you feel if you were awoken every morning by bombs and not birds? How would you feel if you didn’t even feel safe in your own home? How would you feel if you witnessed your own family die in front of you?
If for 68 years they bombarded your land, took away your genuine human rights and killed your families and children, how would you react?”
“Palestine is my country, my land and my home, their pain is my pain, and their freedom is my freedom,” she said, concluding her speech with a famous Nelson Mandela quote, in which he spoke of Palestinian freedom.