In his most concise criticism of Zionism, Hammond says, "The entire Zionist case was outrageous. Its arguments were spurious, prejudiced and hypocritical to the extreme." While I have extracted only a few highlights, his arguments and sources consistently support this summary criticism. There is no logic to any of the many committees and decisions made about Palestine other than the logic of western conceit (and probably their own anti-semitic views, as the Jews were essentially denied entry to most western countries) and Zionist arrogance.
Essential reading
As he stated at the beginning of his writing, Hammond rejects the idea that "violence is inevitable." I would look forward to another work from Hammond outlining his views as to the possible non-violent solutions that he envisions. If written with the same clarity and precision of argument, it would be well worth the read - however any work using logic would have a hard time arguing against a belief system that operates on double standards and self-righteousness.
This short text, obviously not comprehensive, is an excellent summary source of material outlining the consistency of The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination mainly from the Balfour Declaration through to the UN Partition plan. It is clearly written, providing a succinct summary of the various letters, documents, and committees that worked on the cause of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. For anyway considering arguments about the Palestinian-Israeli problem, this work should become a necessary short primer into the double standards used to reject Palestinian democracy.
[1] Ben-Gurion played a central role in the creation of the Israeli atomic bomb, see Michael Karpin, The Bomb in the Basement. Simon & Schuster, 2006.
The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination is available from click here
1 | 2
