Applying Post-WWII Principles of Self-Determination

Introduction

The end of World War II ushered in a new era of international relations founded on principles of self-determination and freedom from colonial rule. These principles, enshrined in the Atlantic Charter and the United Nations Charter, led to the systematic dismantling of European colonial empires and the establishment of independent nations governed by their indigenous populations. However, one notable exception to this pattern was Palestine, where the British Mandate was not transferred to the local population but instead to a newly established state that would govern over the existing inhabitants. This essay argues that Israel's creation and continued existence represents a fundamental violation of the post-WWII principles of self-determination, and that consistency with these principles requires the dissolution of the Israeli state and the establishment of genuine Palestinian self-governance.

The Post-WWII Principle of Self-Determination

The Second World War was fought, in part, on the ideological foundation of opposing territorial conquest and supporting peoples' rights to self-determination. The Atlantic Charter of 1941 and the subsequent United Nations Charter established that peoples should have the right to choose their own form of government and that territorial changes should not occur without the freely expressed wishes of the populations concerned.

Following this principle, the British Empire systematically decolonized throughout the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. In India, Ghana, Kenya, and dozens of other territories, political control was transferred from British colonial administrators to local populations. While the specific processes varied and were often imperfect, the fundamental principle remained consistent: colonial rule was illegitimate, and governance should be returned to the people who had been living under foreign domination.

Palestine as the Exception

Palestine represents the singular exception to this pattern of decolonization. When the British Mandate ended in 1948, rather than transferring power to the existing local population—which was approximately 67% Arab Palestinian and 33% Jewish—the territory was partitioned to create a new state that would govern over the indigenous population. This decision violated the very principles that were being applied elsewhere in the decolonizing world.

The justification offered for this exception was often framed in terms of addressing the Holocaust and European antisemitism. However, this rationale contains a fundamental logical flaw: Palestinians bore no responsibility for European crimes against Jews. If territorial compensation was the appropriate response to the Holocaust, such compensation should have come from the perpetrators—Germany and other European nations—not from an uninvolved population in the Middle East. The decision to make Palestinians pay the price for European crimes represents a profound injustice that violated the principle that peoples should not be punished for crimes they did not commit.

Religious Contradictions

The creation of Israel was often justified through religious claims about divine promises of the land to the Jewish people. However, this religious justification contains internal contradictions that undermine its validity. According to the Talmudic tradition, the "Three Oaths" (Shalosh Shavuot) specifically prohibit Jews from collectively ascending to the Land of Israel by force, from rebelling against the nations of the world, and establish that the return to the land should occur only through divine intervention, not human political action.

Many ultra-orthodox Jewish communities, including groups like Satmar and Neturei Karta, continue to oppose Israel's existence on precisely these religious grounds, arguing that the creation of Israel through political and military means violates divine commandments. The attempts by some religious authorities to argue that secular political permission (such as the Balfour Declaration) can override divine law represents a fundamental theological inconsistency—essentially arguing that human political authorities can supersede divine will.

This creates a profound contradiction: if religious texts are authoritative enough to establish claims to the land, they should also be authoritative enough to establish prohibitions against creating a state through political means. The selective application of religious authority—invoking it when convenient while dismissing it when restrictive—represents blatant theological cherry picking that undermines any claim to religious legitimacy.

The logical trap is inescapable: if we accept the orthodox interpretation that divine commandments are binding regardless of circumstances, then Israel's creation violates God's will and is religiously illegitimate. But if we accept the alternative argument that human circumstances can override divine commandments—specifically, that gentile persecution nullifies the Three Oaths—then the current era's emphasis on self-determination and universal human rights should equally override previous arrangements, thereby legitimizing Palestinian claims to self-determination over Israeli claims to dominance.

Religious Zionists cannot simultaneously argue that divine promises are eternal and unchangeable when claiming land rights, while also arguing that divine prohibitions can be overridden by human circumstances when justifying state creation, yet insist that current human circumstances promoting universal rights cannot override previous arrangements. This represents intellectual dishonesty rather than genuine religious conviction—using religion as a political tool rather than following religious principles consistently.

The Terrorist Campaign for Statehood

The establishment of Israel was not achieved through peaceful negotiation but through a sustained terrorist campaign against British rule. Between 1944 and 1948, Zionist paramilitary groups including the Irgun, Lehi, and Haganah carried out over 57 violent attacks, killing thousands of Palestinians and dozens of British personnel. The Lehi group explicitly referred to its members as terrorists and openly admitted to carrying out acts of terrorism.

Britain's decision to withdraw from Palestine and transfer the territory to the United Nations was largely a response to this terrorist campaign. Rather than continuing to fight these groups indefinitely, Britain chose to withdraw and hand the problem to the international community. The partition plan essentially gave the Zionist groups much of what they had been fighting for, meaning that terrorism succeeded in achieving political goals that had not been attainable through negotiation.

This precedent is deeply problematic: it suggests that sustained terrorist campaigns can successfully coerce international powers into granting political concessions. The same groups that conducted terrorism against British rule became the foundation of the Israeli military and government, with many former Irgun and Lehi members assuming prominent positions in the new state.

The Apartheid Parallel

The system that emerged in Israel/Palestine bears striking similarities to the apartheid system that existed in South Africa. Both systems involved systematic displacement of populations, different legal frameworks for different ethnic groups, control over movement and residency, and policies of land appropriation and settlement. The structural parallels are so significant that former Israeli ambassadors to South Africa have acknowledged that Israel was an apartheid state that took inspiration from pre-1994 South Africa.

Israel and South Africa maintained a military alliance from 1967 onwards, including collaboration on nuclear weapons development. This partnership was based on shared experience of governing as minority populations over majority populations through systems of ethnic domination.

The international community's response to South African apartheid provides a clear precedent for how to address such systems. The solution was not to reform the National Party but to dissolve the apartheid system itself and establish a democratic state with equal rights for all inhabitants regardless of ethnicity. The same principle that justified the dismantling of South African apartheid—that systematic ethnic domination is illegitimate—applies equally to the Israeli system.

The Collapse of Religious Justification

Both interpretations of Jewish religious law lead to the same conclusion regarding Israel's legitimacy. The orthodox interpretation, which treats the Three Oaths as binding divine commandments, clearly prohibits the creation of a Jewish state through political and military means. The alternative interpretation, which argues that gentile persecution can override divine law, establishes a principle that human circumstances can modify divine arrangements—a principle that, when applied consistently, would justify Palestinian self-determination over Israeli dominance in the current era of universal human rights.

This theological cherry picking—selectively invoking religious authority when convenient while dismissing it when restrictive—reveals that religious claims are being used as post-hoc justifications for political goals rather than as genuine guides for behavior. Authentic religious conviction would require accepting both the promises and the restrictions of religious law, even when inconvenient. The failure to do so exposes the use of religion as a political tool rather than a sincere spiritual practice.

The Logical Imperative for Dissolution

Given the collapse of religious justification from both orthodox and revisionist perspectives, we return to the secular principle that guided post-WWII decolonization: if we accept that peoples have the right to self-determination, and that colonial rule is illegitimate regardless of who exercises it, then the same logic that required Britain to decolonize should also require Israel to allow Palestinian self-determination. The principle of self-determination does not recognize exceptions based on how the colonial power acquired the territory, the colonial power's own historical grievances, or religious claims by the ruling group.

Palestine was essentially transferred from one custodial power (Britain) to another (Israel) rather than to its local population. This transfer violated the very principles that were delegitimizing colonial rule elsewhere. If colonial rule was illegitimate when exercised by European powers, there is no logical reason why it would be legitimate when exercised by others.

The dissolution of Israel does not require the expulsion of Jewish inhabitants, any more than the dissolution of apartheid South Africa required the expulsion of white South Africans. Rather, it requires the establishment of a democratic state that provides equal rights to all inhabitants of historic Palestine, regardless of their ethnicity or religion. This would mean the end of the Zionist project of maintaining Jewish demographic and political dominance, but it would not mean the end of Jewish presence in the region.

Conclusion

The creation of Israel represented a fundamental violation of the post-WWII principles of self-determination and decolonization. Palestinians were denied the same rights to self-governance that were being granted to colonized peoples throughout the world. They were made to pay the price for European crimes in which they had no part, so that a state could be established in violation of the very religious principles it claimed as justification.

The maintenance of this system through military occupation, settlement expansion, and systematic discrimination constitutes a form of apartheid that the international community has already recognized as illegitimate. Just as the National Party in South Africa was ultimately dissolved because the system it represented was fundamentally unjust, so too must the Zionist state be dissolved to allow for genuine self-determination by all the peoples of historic Palestine.

This is not a call for revenge or ethnic cleansing, but rather for the consistent application of the principles that have guided international relations since World War II. The right to self-determination is either universal or it is not. If it is universal, then Palestinians deserve the same right to govern themselves in their ancestral homeland that has been granted to decolonized peoples throughout the world.

The Broader Implications

The evidence presented leads to a startling conclusion: the state of Israel neither represents, protects, nor promotes Judaism. Instead, it appears to actively undermine Jewish principles and values. By violating fundamental Jewish religious law (the Three Oaths), exploiting Jewish identity for political purposes, and acting in ways that contradict core Jewish moral teachings about justice and compassion, Israel has corrupted the very tradition it claims to embody.

This corruption extends beyond religious violations to practical consequences. Rather than making Jews safer, Israeli policies have often provoked antisemitic backlash against Jewish communities worldwide who have no connection to Israeli actions. Rather than uniting Jews, the state has created deep divisions within Jewish communities between those who support the state and those who oppose it on religious, moral, or political grounds. Rather than honoring Jewish history and culture, the state has instrumentalized them as tools for political legitimacy while violating their ethical foundations.

The implications are profound: if Israel neither serves Jewish interests nor upholds Jewish values, but instead exploits Jewish identity while violating Jewish principles, then its dissolution would benefit not only Palestinians who would gain their rightful self-determination, but also the Jewish communities worldwide who would be freed from association with a state that misrepresents their faith and endangers their safety.

The path forward requires acknowledging that the Zionist project, however well-intentioned by some of its supporters, has resulted in a system of ethnic domination that is incompatible with principles of human equality and self-determination—and equally incompatible with authentic Jewish values. Only through the dissolution of this system and the establishment of a truly democratic state can justice be achieved for all the peoples of historic Palestine, while allowing Judaism to be practiced authentically rather than exploited politically.

References

1. Khalidi, Rashid. The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood. Boston: Beacon Press, 2007.
2. Pappe, Ilan. The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2007.
3. Masalha, Nur. Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of "Transfer" in Zionist Political Thought, 1882-1948. Washington: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1992.
4. Weizman, Eyal. Hollow Land: Israel's Architecture of Occupation. London: Verso, 2007.
5. Dugard, John. "Apartheid in Palestine: Hard Law and Soft Law." International Law Forum, vol. 14, no. 1, 2012, pp. 59-70.
6. Tilley, Virginia. Beyond Occupation: Apartheid, Colonialism and International Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. London: Pluto Press, 2012.
7. Lustick, Ian S. Unsettled States, Disputed Lands: Britain and Ireland, France and Algeria, Israel and the West Bank-Gaza. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993.
8. Shlaim, Avi. The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World. New York: W.W. Norton, 2001.
9. Morris, Benny. The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
10. Segev, Tom. One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2000.
11. Human Rights Watch. "A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution." April 2021.
12. Amnesty International. "Israel's Apartheid Against Palestinians: Cruel System of Domination and Crime Against Humanity." February 2022.
13. B'Tselem. "A Regime of Jewish Supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This is Apartheid." January 2021.
14. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia. "Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid." March 2017.
15. Finkelstein, Norman G. Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. London: Verso, 2003.
16. Ravitzky, Aviezer. Messianism, Zionism, and Jewish Religious Radicalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
17. Weiss, Yfaat. A Confiscated Memory: Wadi Salib and Haifa's Lost Heritage. New York: Columbia University Press, 2011.
18. Gorenberg, Gershom. The End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple Mount. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
19. Shahak, Israel. Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years. London: Pluto Press, 1994.
20. Neturei Karta International. "The Difference Between Judaism and Zionism." Position Papers, 2018.
21. Satmar Community. "Vayoel Moshe: Against Zionism." Religious Texts and Commentary, 1961.
22. Klug, Brian. "The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism." The Nation, February 2, 2004.
23. Butler, Judith. Parting Ways: Jewishness and the Critique of Zionism. New York: Columbia University Press, 2012.
24. Rose, John. The Myths of Zionism. London: Pluto Press, 2004.
25. Brenner, Lenni. Zionism in the Age of the Dictators. London: Croom Helm, 1983.