The Real News Network has stepped up to the plate once again. They continually blow me away with their coverage of Israel and Palestine. Their new episode Israeli Tree Campaign "Judaizes" Expropriated Land focuses on the Jewish National Fund's role, past and present, in Judaizing the region.
From the founding of the JNF at the 5th Zionist Congress in 1901, for the purpose of purchasing land for Jewish settlement in Palestine culminating in the purchase of only 6% of the land by 1948, thru the evolvement of this organization in the expropriation of land belonging to Palestinians exclusively for Jewish use (still going on today), Real News has produced an excellent JNF 101, a short 12 minute episode worth volumes.
They start off in the Bedouin village of Al Araqib in the Negev desert interviewing Aziz Sayah Al-Turi, son of Al-Araqib's Shiekh Al-Turi, as he motions his arm over a desolate barren landscape marked by only the cruel tracks of JNF bulldozers. Where once his family's 4500 olive and carob trees grew and his house once stood near the homes of other villagers, now nothing. Aziz Sayah Al-Turi explains:
"If we were the Jews, the government would have honored us for making the desert bloom. But we are Arabs, what can we do?"
Interviewing Tel Aviv University history professor Gadi Algazi as he briefly explains how the 1949 Absentee Property Law, in regulating the possession of the Palestinian refugees, facilitated the JNF acquiring the land from 'custodians':
'Ben Gurion circumvented any future action by simply selling, absolutely illegally, selling the land entrusted to the custodians to some third party so that the State of Israel, in case of an international debate, can safely say 'sorry' like any bicycle thief,...'it's not in my hand anymore'..within a few days a million dunam was sold to the JNF. It took about 8 days to realize one of the biggest business deals in the history of Israel...and the JNF never even paid for most of this land.'
From JNF boxes to the recent resignation of board member Seth Morrison, current evictions in Silwan and EJ, to Israel's supreme court forcing the JNF, through the efforts of Zochrot to post the history of ethnically cleansed villages of Beit Nuba, Yalu and Imwas where Canada Park now stands, this video is a must see.
Annie, I have been told over and over and over again how it is myth that the so-called settlers steal Palestinian lands; rather, I am told, the land has been abandoned and bought.
What a racket; cleanse and remove evidence of the Palestinian owners and their villages, declare the land as abandoned (even for a day), appropriate the land, and sell (or give it) for Jewish development; it’s like some kind of mafiosa dream.
There’s a bit of a difference between how lands were expropriated in Israel-proper and in the West Bank. If you don’t feel like reading the 1000-page Sasson report in Hebrew about it, I recommend the phenomenal documentaryThe Law in These Parts and if you only have 10 minutes, we did a story about a small part of this complex issue at The Real News, called Inside Israeli Land Grabs.
Lia Tarachansky!
omg, i am in awe. Thank you for all the amazing work you do.
An informative video.
The 1949 law that Gadi (I forgot his last name) referred, is one of three laws that I’ve been referring to regularly about the same point here, the institutionalization of the prohibition from return, and the erasure of former Palestinian presence.
“In October 2004, civil rights groups petitioned the High Court of Justice to block a Government bid announcement involving JNF land that effectively banned Arabs from bidding. The Government then halted marketing of JNF land in the Galilee and other areas of the north, where there are large Arab populations. In December 2004, Adalah petitioned the High Court to require the Government to apply nondiscriminatory procedures for allocating land and to conduct open land sales/leases to Arabs as well as to Jews. In January 2005, the Attorney General ruled that the Government cannot discriminate against Israeli Arabs in the marketing and allocation of lands it manages, including lands that the Israel Land Administration manages for the Jewish National Fund. Adalah criticized the Attorney General, however, for also deciding that the Government should compensate the JNF with land equal in size to any plots of JNF land won by non-Jewish citizens in government tenders.[4]”
link to en.wikipedia.org
hi richard, here is an excellent interactive map from adalah on israel expropriation of palestinian land.
i am not sure what point you are making richard. your wiki link is to Israel Land Administration (ILA)
“if they show that they qualify as Jewish under the Law of Return” is apartheid legalese for ‘only jews’. the ila leases land, 49% of its members are appointed by the jnf and the jnf controls 13% of the 93%, effectively the jnf is the deciding body on who gets to lease the land. the segment you quoted relates to the privatization of parts of the land (as opposed to leasing)
adalah
the legislation you have referenced is not in relation to the jfn’s apartheid policy of leasing lands. when the land council, under sharon attempted to privatize portions of the land (sell off palestinian land to only jews) adalah challenged this. i wish i knew more about this but i don’t. but this decision by the supreme court doesn’t affect the apartheid policies leasing land thru the jnf.
Not sure what your point is Annie.
The link was the source of the quote.
There have been high court opinions declaring that it is illegal for the JNF or the umbrella Israeli Land Administration from discrimminating on the basis of ethnicity.
My understanding is that supreme court and high court opinions do not have the same extent of precedent setting as in the US.
Still, it is against the law for the JNF to exclude leasing to non-Jews.
So how do you propose, o wise one, that such a law is implemented? Instead of the bluster give us some practical examples. You think they care about the so-called law, if it doesn’t suit them? When has Israel recognised laws which it doesn’t like? Israeli ‘law’ is subservient to their ideology, as you can see all the time.
richard, my point is that the legislation you have referenced there pertains to the ila’s decision to privatize portions of the land.
it is against the law for the JNF to exclude leasing to non-Jews.
could you tell me what the name of that law is? your link says this:
so, is your point the laws are there, it just isn’t practiced? is that your point? i’m trying to understand what you mean. i think i have heard of one case where one palestinian-israeli family went to court and was allowed to build a house on jnf controlled land. (i think). obviously the JNF or the umbrella Israeli Land Administration discriminates on the basis of ethnicity.
i ask you what your point is, your response is to ask me what my point is? are you making the point the discrimination is not embedded in state policy?
This is amazing.
If there is any suggestion of discrimination or even a minor inconvenience inflicted on Jews, Witty screams”genocide”, but when the victims are Palestinians, it’s vague and open to interpretation.
Annie,
The law of the land is of non-discrimmination. The application of the law is of willing turning away, a corruption of the law.
In recent months/years, the law itself has been watered down by incrementally restrictive knesset legislation.
It is an electoral and legal struggle to turn that back to Democratic and Jewish, from Jewish and democratic, or just Jewish.
The electoral and legal struggle are based on persuasion by clear and undeniable reasoning.
Please try not to paint me as a “defender of Israeli policy”. It is the wrong characterization of me, inaccurate and ineffective.
The role of the trusts (JNF and related) must transform as Israel’s role and condition has transformed. My own view is that so long as peace is delayed, real peace, confident peace, that that will allow the transformation of Israeli institutions to also be delayed.
I have NO HOPE in revolutionary approaches to the conflict.
I don’t really have a clue why you do.
I believe that you have met wonderfully deep and strong Palestinians and that that gives you faith. I have met quite a few as well, but likely in very different places.
The Palestinians that I have been impressed with are the ones that have been strong individually, and committed to their community’s well-being, and moved further in their strength to the status of “I will not hate”, entirely past anger, as understandable as it is.
Similarly for the warrior Israelis that have proceeded from say Mossad leadership responsibility to acknowledgment that their temporary “enemy” is a real living human being, deserving of respect and real paths in life.
The law of the land is of non-discrimmination…..Please try not to paint me as a “defender of Israeli policy”.
uh huh, got it.
There have been high court opinions declaring that it is illegal for the JNF or the umbrella Israeli Land Administration from discrimminating on the basis of ethnicity.
Richard you been corrected on this issue on several occasions. The High Court ruling did not say it was illegal for the JNF to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity. Article 3(c) of the JNF Memorandum of Association says that operates to accrue: “benefit, whether directly or indirectly, to those of Jewish race or descendancy”. The High Court rulings only applied to tenders of JNF Land in Israel made through the ILA.
For the purposes of confiscating land, the JNF still enjoys the same status as a Local Authority according to Article 6 of the JNF Law and Article 22 of the Lands Ordinance (Acquisition for Public Purposes) – 1943 and it still discriminates against Palestinians. See our earlier discussion here: link to mondoweiss.net
There is no written Constitution in Israel and equality isn’t an entrenched constitutional right. The JNF and ILA simply ignored the High Court rulings in the Kaadan case for 12 years because the Attorney General developed interim ministerial regulations permitting community admissions committees or the Knesset adopted legislation that specifically circumvented those rulings. One of the latest examples was in March of 2011 when the Knesset adopted the Community Admissions Law. It allowed rural neighborhoods of less than 400 people to operate admissions committees. The sponsor, MK Rotem, openly admitted the function of the committees: “Israel is Jewish and democratic, not a state of all its citizens.” link to jpost.com
So there were about 700 communities under this bill alone where Arabs were forbidden to live. link to adalah.org
Rubbish. Hostage has posted numerous comments referencing blatantly discriminatory laws and policies.
How would you know if it’s effective or otherwise Witty? It’s not as if you are objective – in fact, you’re reputation as an apologist for Israeli policy is taken for granted. You are in fact a bald faced liar and Israeli apologist.
In other words, you hold Palestinians to a much higher standard than you hold Israelis. You always justify Israeli attitudes and behavior on the basis if prior experiences, but when it comes to Palestinians, they have to move on.
They’re supposed to build a bridge and get over it.
What in the world are you talking about? The 1952 Citizenship law established separate categories of citizenship and nationality. The latter is only reserved for Jews as stipulated in the 1950 Law of Return. Thus, the law enshrined discrimination from the very beginning and was Israel’s original sin. All the issues we discuss must be resolved by insisting that Israel adopt a constitution with only one category of citizenship for all who reside inside her borders with equal protection under the law, as was insisted upon in Resolution 181 .
The Israeli constitution, Israeli Basic Laws, and some traditions of the knesset, guaranteed equal due process before the law, and established the standard of opposition to ethnic discrimmination as a component.
I’m aware of exceptions to that.
It exists as a tension in Israeli law, and structurally dismissed by the diminished importance of judicial precedent relative to British and American law.
To say that there is no constitution is false, as the basic laws function as a constitution, and the declaration of independence itself has some legal standing.
In all cases, the diminishment of the importance of Democratic and Jewish, is cultural, and can only be remedied culturally and electorally, and that by persuasion.
In the environment of war, persuasion usually fails. To the extent that revolutionary or not even that far (just condemnatory) attitudes prevail, the state of war and invocations to war will continue to prevail, to the detriment of all good in the world.
Discrimminatory laws should be repealed. I agree Rich B.
How do you think that will be accomplished?
By name-calling?
To say that there is no constitution is false, as the basic laws function as a constitution, and the declaration of independence itself has some legal standing.
I explained that there is no written constitution, i.e. it is not codified in one document. The Knesset was originally convened as a Constituent Assembly tasked with producing a Constitution. Prof. David Kretzmer has explained that the “Supreme Court of Israel originally refused to attribute any special status to the Basic Laws, holding that they were no different from other parliamentary legislation, which may be changed at the will of parliament.” See for example HCJ 148/73 Kaniel v. Minister of Justice, 29 P.D. (1) 794; HCJ 60/77, Ressler v. Central Elections Committee, 31 P.D. (2) 566 – cited in David Kretzmer, International Law in Domestic Courts: Israel link to ssrn.com.
Former High Court of Justice President Barak’s constitutional revolution can be undone. The independence of the Court is under attack by the Knesset and early Supreme Court precedents established that it is the Parliament that is supreme in the field of legislation, not the Court.
The Knesset website explains “Some were inclined to view the Proclamation of Independence, and especially its declaratory section, as a constitution, but the Supreme Court stated, in a series of decisions, that the proclamation does not have constitutional validity, and that it is not a supreme law which may be used to invalidate laws and regulations that contradict it.” — link to knesset.gov.il
a blessing of the new year: Hostage bringing knowledge to this website. Thanks!
>> The law of the land is of non-discrimmination.
Except for minor details such as:
- Israel being a religion-supremacist “Jewish state”;
- Israel having a legally-enshrined, permanent majority status for Jews;
- when “currently necessary”, Israel excising non-Jewish Israelis from their own country – rendering them non-Israelis – should their demographic threaten the permanent-majority status of Jewish Israelis; and
- a right of “return” to Israel granted only to Jewish foreigners.
>> I have NO HOPE in revolutionary approaches to the conflict.
Unless the conflict is the creation of a religion-supremacist state in Palestine, in which case he holds his nose, justifies Zionist terrorism and ethnic cleansing as a “necessary” wrong, and primarily celebrates.
The Basic laws are a written document, and serve as constitutional authority, to which other law is measured.
There is argument within the Israeli Supreme Court as to whether the basic laws are just legislation, or of constitutional nature. Barak acted and led, which is still applied, as if they were constitutional.
Great Britain also does not have a constitution, but they do have a much stronger reliance of precedent and legal principles.
“The independence of the Court is under attack by the Knesset and early Supreme Court precedents established that it is the Parliament that is supreme in the field of legislation, not the Court. ”
This we agree on, as I mentioned.
What do you think about my contention that
“In all cases, the diminishment of the importance of Democratic and Jewish, is cultural, and can only be remedied culturally and electorally, and that by persuasion.
In the environment of war, persuasion usually fails. To the extent that revolutionary or not even that far (just condemnatory) attitudes prevail, the state of war and invocations to war will continue to prevail, to the detriment of all good in the world.”
I would add, that the establishment of legal principles that are relied by legal tradition are also a means to reform the law.
But, that is an INVESTMENT in Israeli institutions, the co-evolution of law.
There is a view that the effort to reform Israeli institutions firms them, makes them more solid, legitimizes them, and that only efforts to make Israeli institutions less fair, less rational, serve the effort to delegitimize Israel.
What a dilemma. Wait until the state falls apart and then only begin to work to protect Palestinians’ rights, or start now and legitimize the Zionist project.
I believe that the Zionist project is legitimate, and that the Palestinian national aspiration is also legitimate.
I am definitively NOT a revolutionary. You?
The Basic laws are a written document, and serve as constitutional authority, to which other law is measured. . . . There is argument within the Israeli Supreme Court as to whether the basic laws are just legislation, or of constitutional nature. Barak acted and led, which is still applied, as if they were constitutional.
Richard even the Supreme Court decisions authored by Justice Barak frequently included tutorials on the methods by which the Knesset could circumvent the legal objections contained in the Court’s rulings regarding the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty and help GSS interrogators avoid criminal liability. The 41 page decision in Public Committee Against Torture v. Israel HCJ 5100/94 provides a graphic example where the Court said:
For another example see Limor Yehuda, Route 443: The Legal Illusion. link to jewishquarterly.org
Remember these were cases where the Court admitted that the petitioners human rights and dignity had been violated.
The article by Kretzmer that I cited above explains that the Supreme Court ruled very early on that the provisions of customary international law are part of the law of the Land of Israel. So the Hague and Geneva Conventions are applicable to the settlements and ouposts, unless they contradict the explicit provisions of some Knesset statute. I’ve pointed out to you on several occasions before that, in the Elon Moreh case, Justice Landau underscored the insurmountable objection to the military commander’s attempt to retroactively authorize ad hoc settler expropriations of Palestinian property on the basis of the Hague regulations. Those regulations stipulate that property can only be expropriated on the basis of a known military necessity, not an excuse invented after the fact. See David Kretzmer, The occupation of justice: the Supreme Court of Israel and the Occupied Territories, SUNY Press, 2002, page 88 for more details.
After years of simply ignoring Supreme Court orders to remove the illegal outposts, the Knesset has recently taken action to adopt statutes to legitimize them or grant widows of IDF soldiers exemptions after the fact, e.g. New bill: Legalize Jewish outposts in West Bank link to ynetnews.com
I’ve also cited cases in which the current President of the Court has acknowledged the parliamentary supremacy of the Knesset in the area of international human rights law concerning Palestinians. The Court rejected a petitionto order the State to refrain from holding Palestinian prisoners and detainees in facilities located in Israeli territory within the Green Line. The HCJ held that since national legislation overrides the provisions of international conventions to which Israel is party, including conventions that reflect customary international law, the petition should be rejected.
Great Britain also does not have a constitution, but they do have a much stronger reliance of precedent and legal principles.
In fact, Great Britain and Israel are the only examples. The UK government used a Privy Council Order to circumvent the “right of return” of Chagossians to Diego Garcia, after their rights had been affirmed in a High Court decision. That is a graphic example of the danger of assuming that basic human rights can be protected without a written constitution that formally entrenches them in fundamental law. See Privy to Chagos islanders’ injustice
link to tribunemagazine.co.uk
Absolutely agree. Hostage’s knowledge of Israeli law is stunning.
How do you think that will be accomplished? . . . By name-calling?
The “name and shame” tactic has been employed since the 19th Century. Why mess with success? Each time it has been used on proposed fascist legislation regarding NGOs or the Courts, Bibi has backtracked or buckled under the pressure.
Hostage’s knowledge of Israeli law is stunning.
No, but the knowledge imparted to others by people like David Kretzmer, former Bruce W. Wayne Chair of International Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, a founding member of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and a member of the executive board of B’Tselem is indispensable.
Like most of us here, I rely heavily on the folks at B’Tselem, ACRI, Adalah, Al Haq, Yesh Din, and a host of others to overcome the language barriers and the lack of reporting in the MSM about these subjects.
Zionists count on everyone accepting their fictionalized accounts of equal rights and due process of law under the Israeli regime, but the situation is far different. I believe that no matter how strained the relationship between the Courts and the Knesset appears at times, in many instances it can still be described as a joint criminal enterprise that targets the Palestinian people subject to their jurisdiction to discrimination on the basis of race or nationality.
Equal rights is not a black/white description. To paint it so is a mis-representation.
The tension between equal due process and privileged relations is a constant one in EVERY state, every community even.
The necessary action is to work within the system to repair it. The only alternative is a revolutionary approach, which has far far worse likelihood of gross suppression of civil rights during wartime (if wartime extends for generations, that is whole generations of both Israelis and Palestinians living under the psychology of forced conformity to the party lines), and great risk of worse suppressions than existed and exist currently in the reactions to the reactions to the reactions.
That can occur originating in both/more communities.
To name a system of law as “criminal” is a revolutionary approach.
I reject that approach as wrong and impractical as well, especially for someone with the moral conscience to have observed the history of ideology driven dissent movements.
The suppressions that exist within Israel proper are at most parallel to Jim Crow, which is reformable.
The suppressions that exist in the West Bank and Gaza (different nature of suppression and stimuli), may be criminal, but the question of path of remedy remains.
I suggest that the path of remedy is statehood, viable self-determination, self-governance.
The question of whether the rule of law is the weight of persecution or the knesset, suggest ONLY where attention is needed to keep the Democracy component alive. In a constitutional legal framework, the rule of law changes slowly (it does as in the American constitution, it can be amended by what is in effect a legislative process, a high bar – 2/3 majority in both Houses, ratified by 3/4 of the states’ legislatures).
The precedents derived from the Constitution change faster, but still very slowly, with one definition of Conservatism being that the law changes very very slowly.
A legislative driven legal structure, requires vigilance in the electoral process, making sure that advocates for democracy and equal due process and equal rights, are prominent in elections.
The revolutionary approach is a divestment from the electoral, from the need to persuade. Its a “lazy man’s” approach, a magical wishing.
“Criminal” in identity is the magical. “Criminal” in application is the reformative.
Reform is an INVESTMENT IN the society. It is hated by the powers that be, and hated by the “lazy”.
I only know really of the work of Betselem, and applaud their commitment to candor, reason, human rights, kindness. And, I also applaud their INVESTMENT in the Israeli legal system, continuing their voice towards its reform, rather than its rejection.
“Richard you been corrected on this issue on several occasions.”
He has been corrected on many issues over and over again, with the same result every time. The only point in correcting him is so that other readers can see that he is wrong.
The necessary action is to work within the system to repair it. The only alternative is a revolutionary approach, which has far far worse likelihood of gross suppression of civil rights during wartime (if wartime extends for generations, that is whole generations of both Israelis and Palestinians living under the psychology of forced conformity to the party lines), and great risk of worse suppressions than existed and exist currently in the reactions to the reactions to the reactions.
You act as if this some future threat. There has been a non-stop 63 year plus gross suppression of civil rights during alleged wartime due to the abuse of “emergency law”. Note the following from May 24 of last year in Haaretz:
link to haaretz.com
What are these emergency regulations?
They include, for example, regarding travelling abroad, the law to prevent infiltration, the law enabling the army to commandeer private property, the seafaring vessels law, the emergency laws for arrests, searches and land confiscation, the law supervising goods and services and the law prohibiting baking at night.
The suppressions that exist within Israel proper are at most parallel to Jim Crow, which is reformable.
A better parallel is with the other tyrants in the region such as Hosni Mubarek who also had decades of emergency law to take away the rights of the citizens and the solution to the “problem” is the same.
I suggest that the path of remedy is statehood, viable self-determination, self-governance.
Nope. The path of remedy is for the Jewish and democratic state to become a democratic state, period. Once that happens a host of one and two state solutions become suddenly viable.
Here’s how the emergency regulations are used to steal land from the Palestinians by the use of the continuous state of emergency.
Ben White (2011-12-05). Palestinians in Israel (p. 25). Pluto Press.
Why doesn’t the state of emergency get revoked. Note these candid comments in Haaretz June 2005 [emphasis mine]
link to haaretz.com
Richb Article 8 and 10 of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty deliberately created constitutional loopholes:
“Violation of rights: 8. There shall be no violation of rights under this Basic Law except by a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required.”
None of the discriminatory laws enacted prior to the adoption of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty were effected. They can be retained forever:
“Validity of laws: 10. This Basic Law shall not affect the validity of any law (din) in force prior to the commencement of the Basic Law.”
Hostage, do you happen to know the author of the book about the legal system in the OT?
I hope I’m not being too vague… but there was a former Israeli judge or something along those lines who wrote a book about the occupation’s military courts.
Annie sez:
“..land for Jewish settlement in Palestine culminating in the purchase of only 6% of the land by 1948″.
My sources give closer to 8% of the total land of ‘Palestine’. Now when you factor in that over fifty percent of the total land of Palestine was State owned and desert scrub land, the portion of Jewish owned, arable, private land is much higher, about 1/3.
BTW. “In the two years between June 1934 and August 1936, Jews bought more than 53,000 dunams in 2,339 land sales. Of these, 41 sales involved more than 500 dunams and 164 involved 100 to 500 dunams. The vast majority – 2,134 sales – were of plots of less than 100 dunams. This means that thousands of Arabs of all walks of life – poor and rich, Christian and Muslim, members of the political mainstream and oppositionists, city dwellers, Bedouin, and villagers – acted contrary to the norms laid down by their national movement. Cohen, Hillel. Army of Shadows: Palestinian Collaboration with Zionism, 1917-1948. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008. 32-33
no it isn’t almost none of the arable land was owned by jews.
My sources give closer to 8% of the total land of ‘Palestine’.
The Chairman of the Jewish Agency, David Ben Gurion, testified: “The Arabs own 94% of the land, the Jews only 6%.” to the UNSCOP Committee in July of 1947. See A/364/Add.2 PV.16, 4 July 1947, United Nations Special Committee On Palestine, Report Of The General Assembly, Volume III, Annex A: Oral Evidence Presented At Public Meeting Lake Success, New York link to unispal.un.org
Mandatory Palestine consisted of 26 million square dunams of land.
By 1948, the Jews owned between 1.8 and 2 millions square dunams depending on who you ask.
But lets examine the other part of my post, “… thousands of Arabs of all walks of life – poor and rich, Christian and Muslim, members of the political mainstream and oppositionists, city dwellers, Bedouin, and villagers – acted contrary to the norms laid down by their national movement.”
The Arabs were selling their patrimony to the Zionists hand over fist during the Mandatory. For their part, the British authorities in Palestine tried, with little success, to put restrictions on these Arab-to-Jew land transfers.
Imagine how much more land the Arabs would have sold to the Zionists had the free market allowed to operate freely and if the Nazi loving Husseinis hadn’t violently opposed the land sales. Imagine.
Let’s visualize this for a second. See these four maps:
link to arenaofspeculation.org
Source: Malkit Shoshan (of B’Tsalem which Witty supposedly loves)
The first map is Jewish owned land in 1918. The second is Jewish owned land in 1947. Then we shift to the stolen so-called ‘state land’ which we have been discussing here. The third map is the state land from 1960 and the fourth map is the same from 2002.
Imagine how much land the Palestinians would have had if it was purchased from them rather than taken from the point of a gun. Imagine.
Another way to visualize. This shows the land loss in a number of Arab municipalities inside Israel proper.
link to i484.photobucket.com
Source: David A. Wesley, State Practices & Zionist Images: Shaping Economic Development in Arab Towns in Israel, Berghahn Books: Oxford, 2006.
During my tour entering into Kafr Kana was a very eye-opening experience. It was on Land Day. There was a huge line of police cars just outside the village. Once we got inside of Cana there was a very peaceful and orderly protest. There was also a general strike both there and in Nazareth. This meant many of the shops were shuttered. The Israeli guide tried to “explain” this by saying they were protesting for their “brothers” in the occupied territories and made a comment that this was Land Day. Not knowing what Land Day was I Googled it in my hotel room that night. There I found they were protesting not just about 1967 but also about 1948. Note the large land loss so they weren’t just protesting for their brothers but also for themselves. Our guide also made a snide, racist, comment that the general strike would mean that there would less thieves. Note we were not in the Occupied Territories so this shows the typical racist Israeli attitude towards Arab Israelis.
Another way to visualize. Here’s Google Maps of Kafr Kana:
link to maps.google.com
Note how all the Jewish settlements are on the hills, e.g. Nazareth Illit and Tsipori and Givat Ela, that bottle in the Arab villages into the valley. Note the forest next to Tsipori which are the remains of Saffuriyya. The quarter in Nazareth where the refugees live is a mere 5 km away from their stolen land which they are forbidden to return.
The Arabs were selling their patrimony to the Zionists hand over fist during the Mandatory.
In fact after 25 years the Zionist land acquisition program was a miserable failure and had ground to a halt. The overwhelming majority of Arabs had pressured the Mandatory administration to prohibit land transfers to Jews in the majority of the territory. The British White Paper of 1939 and the Land Transfer Ordinance of 1940 established the boundaries of the Jewish national home. Those policies were upheld in the case of Bernard A. Rosenblatt (petitioner) vs. the Registar of Lands, Haifa ; Director of Land Registration, Jerusalem ; Edmond N. Levy (respondents) (High court case no. 19/47): in the Supreme court sitting as a High Court of Justice ; before the chief justice (Sir William Fitzgerald) and Mr. Justice de Comarmond); hearings on 9th May, 1947 and 12th May, 1947. The Court held that the Balfour Declaration/Mandate were only legally enforceable to the extent that they were incorporated in the Palestine-Order-in-Council or some other municipal law. The Court also held that national legislation overrides any conflicting provisions of the Mandate.
In addition Jewish buyers frequently registered transfers of larger amounts of land than the Arab seller owned according to the Ottoman records. Kenneth Stein wrote that: Practically, Jewish purchasers and the JNF in particular utilized Ottoman abuses of under-registration and non-registration during the Mandate to enhance the size of their acquisitions and decrease taxes due on their new purchases. For example, the JNF’s purchase of 30,000 dunams at Emek Hepher/Wadi Hawarith in April 1929 was registered in the Ottoman land registry as 5,000 dunams. At the public auction where the JNF purchased these lands, Yehoshua Hankin, representing the JNF, paid just over one pound per dunam. But privately, Hankin agreed with the Tayan family sellers to pay a previously agreed upon sum of four pounds per dunam. In this manner, the JNF paid a lower transfer tax to the British, but settled quietly with the Tayans for a greater sum. See “The Jewish National Fund: Land Purchase Methods and Priorities, 1924 – 1939″, Middle Eastern Studies, April 1984, Volume 20 Number 2, pp. 190-205
Hostage says:
“In fact after 25 years the Zionist land acquisition program was a miserable failure and had ground to a halt.”
Well. Professor Kenneth Stein, who you selectively quote, wholly refutes your claim above.
Professor Stein said:
“After the application of the Land Transfer Regulations in 1940, Sir John Shuckburg of the Colonial Office remarked that “the Arab landowner [needed] to be protected against himself.”
“..because small-landowner protection never evolved, the British ultimately imposed legislative restrictions on land purchase through the 1940 land transfer prohibitions. But, like the previous legislative attempts, they proved incapable of stopping the transfer of land because of economic forces”.
“The effort to create an Arab National Fund in 1931 and the Tulkarm-based Society for the Preservation of Arab Lands in 1932 failed to attract public commitment to protect and defend Palestinian land.
Later efforts in the 1940s by Palestinian Arabs to stop land sales to Jews, already prohibited, in most cases by the Land Transfer Regulations, were ineffective also.”
See, LAND QUESTION IN PALESTINE: 1917-1939, Chapter 7 “Conclusions” (University of North Carolina Press:1984) by Kenneth W. Stein.
proudzionist777, you overlooked the fact that Stein said the acquisitions after the Land Ordinance went into effect were completely unofficial and unregistered. So the efforts of the Arab majority weren’t so ineffective. The 1947 High Court of Justice decision that I cited ruled against the Jewish petitioners going forward.
Kenneth W. Stein wrote: When the Land Transfer Regulations were imposed in February 1940, the JNF was not caught by surprise. In the 1940s the JNF purchased most of the land acquired by Jews in Palestine. By then the mechanisms for land transfer had been fully established, developed, and fine-tuned. Certainly the legal restraints imposed upon the JNF greatly complicated the acquisition of land, but unofficial and unregistered transfers continued.
As I noted the Land Transfer Ordinance had effectively partitioned state. The 1940 Land Transfers Ordinance divided the country into threes zones. Land transfers in Zones A and B, except to a “Palestinian Arab”, were prohibited. Judea and Samaria were located in those Zones. Here is a link to the map link to books.google.com
Ben Gurion testified to the UNSCOP about the actual situation:
Mr. BEN GURION: I told you in my evidence that when we had the talks after our last congress with the Government in London, we told them that if a Jewish State in an adequate area of Palestine were offered, we would consider it. Mr. LISICKY (Czechoslovakia) : Does that mean partition?
Mr. BEN GURION: “To partition,” according to the Oxford dictionary, means to divide a thing into two parts. Palestine is divided into three parts, and only in a small part are the Jews allowed to live. We are against that.
link to unispal.un.org
Hey Hostage.
Your cite, Mandated Landscapes makes my argument. Thanks!
Mandated Landscapes, page 271, Conclusions.
“Despite setting up the Society for the Preservation of Arabs Lands.., and the Arab Fund to Save Arab Lands from Jew, the revived National Fund…and the Arab Land Company in 1947.., the Arabs continued co-operating with the Jews in land sales, making the Mandatory’s work all the more difficult”.
The 1947 High Court of Justice decision that you cited, which sounds like ‘too little, too late’, cannot be accessed and read, which is unfortunate since, as an attorney, I’d really like to have read it. Can you email the decision to me?
PZ
So after a major uprising, in which the population of about 1.3 million Arabs demanded an end to Jewish immigration and settlement in most of the country; and after the Jewish Agency had exhausted its legal appeals against the new land ordinance; you cite 2,000 unofficial and unregistered private purchases as if the majority were selling you their patrimony. I’ll take Ben Gurion’s word for it. Two-thirds of the country had been placed off-limits to the Jews.
Hostage said that:
“In fact after 25 years the Zionist land acquisition program was a miserable failure..”
I’ve argued that Zionist land acquisition in Palestine was very successful, and that the Mandatory prohibitions on Arab to Jew land transfers is proof positive that, quoting Shuckburg of the Colonial Office, “the Arab landowner [needed] to be protected against himself.”
Sure, after 20 years of Arabs selling their land to the Zionists, including sales by Arab notables and nationalists, ‘two-thirds of the country had been placed off-limits to the Jews’. But despite the 1940 Land Laws, quoting Stein now, ‘like the previous legislative attempts, they proved incapable of stopping the transfer of land because of economic forces”.
In the end, 600,000 Jews, one-third of the population of Palestine managed to buy roughly one-third of the privately owned land of Palestine from the Arabs, this, despite HMG’s attempts to stop or curtail the Arabs from selling their land.
The 1947 High Court of Justice decision that you cited, which sounds like ‘too little, too late’
After 25 years the Jews, who constituted a third of the population, had amassed a whopping 6 percent of the land – and most of that was unregistered and unofficial. According to Ben Gurion’s testimony they were also prohibited from living in 2/3rds of the country. The only thing which altered that situation afterward was when Ben Gurion told a JNF representative in February of 1948 that Jews didn’t need to purchase land anymore, but to conquer it. See Shlomo Ben Ami, Scars of War Wounds of Peace, page 45
Members of the Jewish Agency Political Department had been frankly admitting to foreign diplomats since 1942 that it was idle to continue to talk of “negotiations” with the Arabs, and that it was obvious that any solution satisfactory to Zionists would have to be “imposed” on Arabs by threat or use of force and that was the only realistic line of action they were willing to adopt. There was no mention of the Arabs queuing-up to sell their patrimony to the Jews. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu
The 1947 High Court of Justice decision that you cited, . . . . cannot be accessed and read, which is unfortunate since, as an attorney, I’d really like to have read it. Can you email the decision to me?
Not unless you can receive dead trees or hardback books in your email. link to books.google.com
The Court ruled that the mandate was only legally enforceable in so far as its provisions had been incorporated in municipal laws or the Order-in-Council of 1922 – and that national legislation, like the 1940 Land Transfer Ordinance, overrides the provisions of international instruments and conventions. Israel applies the very same dualist legal doctrine to overrule the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention today.
The State Department Digest cites a discussion in the Annual Digest concerning the Mandate era High Court of Justice opinion. The Digest also notes that, after the termination of the mandate, the government of Israel repealed the 1939 White Paper retroactively and that the Supreme Court of Israel had deviated from British and Israeli dualist doctrine and retroactively ruled that the Mandate did form part of the law of Palestine and that it would entertain inter-temporal arguments that laws conflicting with the Mandate were invalid. See Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) 655
Here is that citation and Israeli Supreme Court discussion: Note in [ 1948] Annual Digest42-43, commenting on the case of Leon v. Gubernik in the same Court, in which it is stated: “However, we must not ignore the argument . . . that Imperial statutes which were inconsistent with the Mandate are of no validity. During the Mandate the Courts rejected such arguments on the ground that the Mandate was only law in so far as its provisions had been incorporated into the Palestine Order in Council, 1922. The attitude of this Court is different. We are prepared to examine laws passed by the Mandatory in the light of the provisions of the Mandate.” According to this same Note, decisions of the Mandatory’s courts do not constitute binding precedents on the Courts of Israel, Rosenbaum v.Rosenbaum
In any event, the League of Nations didn’t entrust administration of its mandate or the laws to the Jewish Agency or Israel.
In the end, 600,000 Jews, one-third of the population of Palestine managed to buy roughly one-third of the privately owned land of Palestine from the Arabs, this, despite HMG’s attempts to stop or curtail the Arabs from selling their land.
You keep overlooking the fact that a) most of those purchases were unofficial and unregistered; b) the other A mandates had been emancipated; c) the General Assembly had stated that the Chapter of the UN Charter on Non-self-governing territories was a treaty obligation and that it had immediate force and effect without any trusteeship agreements; d) the UN, the Jewish Agency, the Arab Higher Committee, and the British Mandatory had decided to terminate the mandate regardless of the decision on partition; e) the British government reported that there was an Arab majority in both of the proposed states.
So without conquest and ethnic cleansing, the Jews would not have been able to obtain more land or overrule the desires of an Arab majority government regarding immigration.
P.S. “one-third of the privately owned land of Palestine” still amounted to less than 6 percent of the total available for the use of the Arab majority.
Hostage.
a) Please refresh my memory. Who said most of the purchases were unofficial? Stein? Referring to post 1940 purchases or total purchases throughout the Mandate?
b) Palestine was not a Class “A” Mandate so I do not see your point.
Class “A” status was granted to a number of Arab peoples who were ready for independence in the former Ottoman Empire, and, by the way, only to Arab entities. Palestinian Arabs were not one of these ‘Arab peoples.’ The Palestine Royal Report clarifies this point:
“(2) The Mandate [for Palestine] is of a different type from the Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon and the draft Mandate for Iraq. These latter, which were called for convenience “A” Mandates, accorded with the fourth paragraph of Article 22. Thus the Syrian Mandate provided that the government should be based on an organic law which should take into account the rights, interests and wishes of all the inhabitants, and that measures should be enacted ‘to facilitate the progressive development of Syria and the Lebanon as independent States’. The corresponding sentences of the draft Mandate for Iraq were the same. In compliance with them National Legislatures were established in due course on an elective basis. Article 1 of the Palestine Mandate, on the other hand, vests ‘full powers of legislation and of administration’, within the limits of the Mandate, in the Mandatory”.
The Palestine Royal Report highlights additional differences:
“Unquestionably, however, the primary purpose of the Mandate, as expressed in its preamble and its articles, is to promote the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
“(5) Articles 4, 6 and 11 provide for the recognition of a Jewish Agency ‘as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration’ on matters affecting Jewish interests. No such body is envisaged for dealing with Arab interests.
“48. But Palestine was different from the other ex-Turkish provinces. It was, indeed, unique both as the Holy Land of three world-religions and as the old historic homeland of the Jews. The Arabs had lived in it for centuries, but they had long ceased to rule it, and in view of its peculiar character they could not now claim to possess it in the same way as they could claim possession of Syria or Iraq” ..
See, Palestine Royal Report, July 1937, Chapter II, p. 28, paragraph 29.
Additionally, the “Mandate for Palestine”never mentions Class “A” status at any
time for Palestinian Arabs.
To sum up. Historically, Palestine was an ‘anomaly’ within the Mandate
system, ‘in a class of its own’ – initially referred to by the British as a
“special regime”.
c) d) & e)
You said that, ‘So without conquest and ethnic cleansing, the Jews would not have been able to obtain more land or overrule the desires of an Arab majority government regarding immigration.’
I’m sorry but this sounds like a conclusory statement from a moot court class in International Law .
a) Please refresh my memory. Who said most of the purchases were unofficial? Stein? Referring to post 1940 purchases or total purchases throughout the Mandate?
Both. Stein said that during the 1940s the JNF purchased most of the land acquired by Jews in Palestine and that the legal restraints imposed upon the JNF by the 1940 Land Transfer Ordinance greatly complicated the acquisition of land, but unofficial and unregistered transfers continued. the bottom line is that after 25 years, one third of the population owned only 6 percent of the land and was prohibited from purchasing land in 2/3rds of the country. Since the UN partition plan was never implemented, the “state land” and so-called “abandoned property” subsequently acquired by Israel was obtained by conquest, not purchased.
Palestine was not a Class “A” Mandate so I do not see your point. . . . I’m sorry but this sounds like a conclusory statement from a moot court class in International Law.
The International Court of Justice provided an analysis of the legal status of the territory in the 2004 Wall Case which said that:
link to icj-cij.org
The Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) contains the official documentary record of major foreign policy decisions taken by the post-World War I Peace Conferences. The Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919 Volume XIII, Annotations to the treaty of peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany, signed at Versailles, June 28, 1919 explains:
“The mandates under which the various territories have been administered were submitted by the mandatory governments to the Council of the League of Nations in accordance with paragraph 8 of article 22. The terms were reviewed by the Council, in some cases revised on its recommendation, and finally approved by it. The following table gives the pertinent data for each territory:
“A” Mandates
*Palestine
*Trans-Jordan
*Syria and Lebanon’
link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu
The FRUS also records that on November 22, 1947, Mr. Johnson, the representative of United States, expressed agreement with the statement made by the Chairman of the UN General Assembly Ad Hoc Sub-Committee 1 on the Question of Palestine that the plan presented by the Sub-Committee was legal under the Charter. There was nothing in the Charter which prevented an immediate transition from a Class A mandate to independence. Foreign relations of the United States, 1947. The Near East and Africa Volume V, 1278 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu
FYI, the classes of the various mandates were established by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers and ratified by the Council of the League of Nations. Duncan Hall noted that each mandate was in the nature of a treaty, and that being treaties, the mandates could not be amended unilaterally by the mandatory power. See Mandates, Dependencies and Trusteeship, by H. Duncan Hall, Carnegie Endowment, 1948, pages 91-112. That opinion was confirmed by the ICJ in the International Status of South West Africa case (1949). link to icj-cij.org
All of that is pretty much Public International Law 101. Let me know if you’d like some more tutelage.
I’m sorry if reality offends you so.
Nicely done Hostage. I do love how you dispatch these ignoramuses and poseurs so eloquently and comprehensively.
He might need some serious deprogramming first.
you’ve done an awesome job here too shingo.
it’s really more than i could have hoped for overall..rich b too. just incredible. i am sooo bookmarking this thread.
Hostage quotes Shlomo Ben Ami :
“Ben Gurion told a JNF representative in February of 1948 that Jews didn’t need to purchase land anymore, but to conquer it. See Shlomo Ben Ami, Scars of War Wounds of Peace, page 45″.
This is a bullshit quote. No cites in Ben Ami’s book whatsover.
Ben Ami was probably was referring to a Mapam party meeting quoted in Nur Masala’s ‘Expulsion of the Palestinian people, page 180. Masala himself is a notoriously poor scholar so this translation into English from Hebrew or perhaps even from Masala’s Arabic into English must be taken with more than a grain of salt.
‘Ben Gurion told the Mapi Party Council that “without populating the Jerusalem mountains and the hills [surrounding] the coastal plain I am doubtful whether we would be able to maintain the link with Jerusalem”, and therefore that is is necessary to be in [settle] the mountains.” In response to a remark from a member of the audience that ” We have no land there [in the hills and mountains], Ben Gurion replied:
” The War will give us land. The concepts of “ours” and “not our” are peace concepts, and in war they lose there whole meaning”
What is clear is that the subject of the conversation at the party meeting was about seizing land around Jerusalem (in order to break the Arab’s starvation siege).
Did Ben Gurion say ‘settle’ with civilians, or ‘occupy’ with a military presence?
Dunno.
What Ben Gurion really thought about the rest of the land of Palestine on that day in February 1948 is anyone’s guess and the actual Hebrew translation of the party minutes is crucial.
Obviously Ben Ami’s quote is crap and only muddles the historical record.
Hostage says: “I’ll take Ben Gurion’s word for it. Two-thirds of the country had been placed off-limits to the Jews.”
Not withstanding Ben Gurion’s quote. Two thirds of the country had not been placed off-limits to Jews. Jew could live anywhere in Palestine, and did, the ineffective Land Reform Act of 1940 made it more difficult for Jews to purchase new lands from Arabs in 2/3 of the country.
Hostage says:
Members of the Jewish Agency Political Department had been frankly admitting to foreign diplomats since 1942 that it was idle to continue to talk of “negotiations” with the Arabs, and that it was obvious that any solution satisfactory to Zionists would have to be “imposed” on Arabs by threat or use of force and that was the only realistic line of action they were willing to adopt.
Hostage. This is not exactly what the linked quote says. It seems you copied beginning of the quote and than chose to paraphrase the end of the quote in a manner that tends to reflect badly on the Zionists. Would the ‘threat or use of force’ against the Arabs be made by the British or the Zionists. Can’t tell from the actual quote, but you added and cut the quote so it seems that the Zionists only would use ‘threat or the use of force’ against the Arabs.
Not nice.
And then you go on to explain what the quote is supposed to mean. Seriously proudzionist777, I hope you are not a practicing attourney, because you clearly suck at producing a convincing argument, and even more when it comes to bluffing.
Did Ben Gurion say ‘settle’ with civilians, or ‘occupy’ with a military presence?
Both.
The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and take away from them their country. Behind the terrorism [by the Arabs] is a movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self sacrifice. To maintain the status quo will not do. We have to set up a dynamic state bent upon expansion. Take the American Declaration of Independence for instance. It contains no mention of the territorial limits. We are not obliged to state the limits of our State. After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.
What Ben Gurion really thought about the rest of the land of Palestine on that day in February 1948 is anyone’s guess and the actual Hebrew translation of the party minutes is crucial.
No guessing required. What he thought is documented in 1937, when in a letter to his son,
“No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of the Land Of Israel. [A] Jewish state in part [of Palestine] is not an end, but a beginning ….. Our possession is important not only for itself … through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a [small] state …. will serve as a very potent lever in our historical effort to redeem the whole country.”
The only crap here is what you’re trying to sell.
Would the ‘threat or use of force’ against the Arabs be made by the British or the Zionists. Can’t tell from the actual quote, but you added and cut the quote so it seems that the Zionists only would use ‘threat or the use of force’ against the Arabs.
Ben-Gurion, made this abundatly clear to the Peel Commission were stated here in an August 1937 emergency session of the 20th Zionist Congress, convened in Zurich:
“We do not want to dispossess, [but piecemeal] transfer of population [through Jewish purchase and the removal of Arab tenant farmers] occurred previously, in the [Jezreel] Valley, in the Sharon and in other places … Now a transfer of a completely different scope will have to be carried out … Transfer is what will make possible a comprehensive [Jewish] settlement programme. Thankfully, the Arab people have vast empty areas [in Transjordan and Iraq]. Jewish power, which grows steadily, will also increase our possibilities to carry out the transfer on a large scale.”
Obviously, BG was not intending for the British to do it for them.
Not nice.
This is a bullshit quote. No cites in Ben Ami’s book whatsover. Ben Ami was probably was referring to a Mapam party meeting quoted in Nur Masala’s ‘Expulsion of the Palestinian people, page 180.
No. He was referring to the record of the conversation between Ben Gurion and Joseph Weitz, director of the JNF Land and Forestry Department. See Josef Weitz, My Diary and Letters to the Children, volume 3, Masada, Ramat Gan, 1965, page 279.
Did Ben Gurion say ‘settle’ with civilians, or ‘occupy’ with a military presence? . . . Dunno.
There’s no shortage of documentary proof, including the Weitz diaries, Benny Morris, Meron Benvenisti, Schlomo Ben Ami, and UN observers that Israel settled Jewish immigrants in conquered Arab villages during the war. In any event, the list of things that you don’t know is not what we are discussing here.
Hostage. This is not exactly what the linked quote says
Yawn. Okay here is a verbatim quote. There is no mention of the British or any expectation that they were going to rescind the 1939 White Paper and the 1940 Land Transfer Ordinance and impose a settlement acceptable to the Zionists on the Arabs. In fact, the Consul attributes the hardening of the Zionist attitude to clandestine arming by Jews in Palestine:
Frankly, I don’t see how pursuing efforts to get the British to use threats or force against the Arabs makes the Zionists look any less evil.
Thank you for making the correction.
As far as the (actual) quote, lets add some context. One year prior to the discussion with the Zionists in Egypt, there had been a pro-Nazi coup attempt and pogrom in Iraq. Some sources say that about 180 Jews were killed and about 240 were wounded, 586 Jewish-owned businesses were looted and 99 Jewish houses were destroyed. Other accounts state that nearly 200 Jews were killed and over 2,000 injured, while 900 Jewish homes and hundreds of Jewish-owned shops destroyed and looted. Bernard Lewis writes that according to the “official” statistics 600 Jews were killed and 240 injured, but the unofficial estimates were much higher.
Arabs coffee houses throughout the Middle East and North Africa tuned into vile, arabic language Nazi propaganda daily. In 1945, it would be the Cairo’s Jews were the victim of yet another Arab pogrom against the Jews.
Evil? What evil?
Evil? What evil?
The evil the Zionists and their British sponsors had plotted and perpetrated against the Arabs of Palestine for 22 years. Neither the Zionists nor the British were ready for democracy, since they were unwilling to extend equal rights to others. So neither were really equipped to render advice or assistance to peoples under mandate on that subject.
Like the founders of the United States, the Arabs rose-up to overthrow tyranny. They paid for rebelling against foreign domination with summary executions, house searches without warrants, night raids, preventive detention, internment without trial, collective punishment, caning and flogging, deportation, the confiscation or destruction of the homes of actual or presumed rebels, and torture of suspects and prisoners. Massive force was used to disperse peaceful demonstrations. The RAF razed entire villages to the ground as collective punishment. In 1938 one RAF squadron alone dropped 768 20 lb and 29 112 lb bombs and fired over 62000 rounds in operations against Palestinian rebel targets. See for example:
*Gudrun Kramer, Graham Harman, A History of Palestine: From the Ottoman Conquest to the Founding of the State of Israel, Princeton University Press, 2011, page 274
*John Newsinger, The Blood never dried: a people’s history of the British Empire, Bookmarks, 2006, page 138
*Shlomo Ben-Ami, Scars of War, Wounds of Peace, Oxford University Press, 2006, page 11
*Avi Shlaim, An Anemone in the King’s Buttonhole, Literary Review, February 2001, link to users.ox.ac.uk
The US State Department didn’t need to be reminded that the Zionist experiment was a disaster, but Bernard Lewis never seemed to have a clue about that aspect of the documentary history of the Mandate.
Hostage, I remind you that if you ever want to do posts taht are not strictly responses to hasbara or other historical arguments, but are arguments of your own, expressing your values and vision more openly and fully, we would be honored to publish them as posts… You know how to find me. Phil
Ah yes, the dreaded Ben Gurion letter to his son.
Well. What does Benny Morris have to say about the letter.
“In my work I initially also quoted from Ben-Gurion’s letter to his son Amos from October 1937. Later I stopped referring to it altogether… because the letter is problematic.
The problem is that the handwritten page by Ben-Gurion sports a crossed-out line, which leaves the text saying starkly: “We must expel Arabs and take their places.” But if one deciphers what is written in the crossed-out section (as was done by experts in the IDF Archive, where it is deposited), one emerges with the full sentence running: “We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs …”
“The question then is what Ben-Gurion intended to write — and who crossed out the lines. If it was Ben-Gurion himself, and with aforethought (but Ben-Gurion was famous for almost never correcting his handrwritten texts), then the sentence must read: “We must expel Arabs …” But if it was someone else, with some ulterior motive, or if Ben-Gurion crossed out the words mistakenly and unintentionally, then one may conclude that Ben-Gurion had written and intended the opposite.
There is no way of deciphering who did the crossing out.”
Get with the times Shingo.
Read more: link to americanthinker.com
Hostage says: “The British White Paper of 1939 and the Land Transfer Ordinance of 1940 established the boundaries of the Jewish national home.”
Hostage.
The British White Paper of 1939 had violated the Mandate. So the White Paper’s progeny, the Land Transfer Ordinance of 1940 would seem to be null and void.
See below at paragraph 14.
PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
REPORT 29TH JUNE 1939
A. PALESTINE: OBSERVATIONS ON THE POLICY LAID DOWN IN THE
WHITE PAPER OF MAY 1939
……Paragraphs 9 to 15
9. From the first, one fact forced itself to the notice of the Commission – namely, that the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which in agreement with the mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine mandate.
In order to prove this, it will be enough to say that, only two years ago, the Government of the mandatory declared; in the Statement of Policy which accompanied the report published by the Royal Commission, that the present mandate was unworkable. In view of this, the Mandates Commission communicated to the Council its opinion that a mandate which was declared unworkable by the mandatory Power almost became so by that very fact.
10. In 1937, there was already a conflict between Jewish and Arab aspirations, which the United Kingdom Government admitted its inability to reconcile; that conflict was the principal obstacle to Palestine’s being administered in accordance with the mandate. Since that time the conflict has become more and more intense. In 1937 the United Kingdom Government, feeling itself unable equitably to administer Palestine under the present mandate believed that the possibility of so doing was to be found in a territorial partition for which no provision was made therein, while to-day it considers its new policy to be in accordance with the mandate. Does this not show that that instrument had at that time a different meaning in the eyes of the mandatory Power than that which it has to-day.
11. The Commission did not, however, confine itself to establishing this single fact. It went on to consider whether the Palestine mandate might not perhaps be open to a new interpretation which, while still respecting its main principles, would be sufficiently flexible for the policy of the White Paper not to appear at variance with it. The Commission was all the less reluctant to raise this question since, according to the mandatory Power, no such contradiction existed. The Commission learned from the Secretary of State for the Colonies that the mandatory Power considered, on the strength of the opinion expressed by its legal advisers that, in view of the changed situation, the policy that it proposed to pursue was in agreement with the mandate, itself based on Article 22 of the Covenant and on the Balfour Declaration.
12. During the examination of this latter question divergent views were found to exist among members of the Commission.
13. In view of the divergencies, and of the resultant inability of the Commission to submit on this point conclusions which would be both definite and unanimous, it can only refer the Council to the Minutes of its meetings for an account of the individual views of its members.
14. As will be seen therein, four of the latter did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors.
15. The other members, three in number, were unable to share this opinion; they consider that existing circumstances would justify the policy of the White Paper, provided the Council did not oppose it
I still remember my visit to Yad Vashem where my guide mentioned how the JNF planted trees in honor of the “righteous Gentiles”, while pointing to the Jerusalem Forest! As shown by Zochrot the real purpose of these artificial forests is to erase history. Ilan Pappe in the Ethnic Cleansing of Israel noted that the Forest of Birya, which is the largest man made forest in Israel, conceals the land of six Palestinian villages; Dishon, Alma, Qaddita, Amqa, Ayn al-Zaytun, and Birya.
You don’t have to trust Ilan Pappe, just your own eyes. Here’s the village of Saffurriya just outside Nazareth with a photo of Saffurriya at ground level.
link to i484.photobucket.com
I decided to see what this looked like on Google Earth. Here’s the screenshot.
link to i484.photobucket.com
While I was at it I also overlaid the ethnically cleansed villages on top of a map of the UN partition (border in blue).
link to i484.photobucket.com
Needless to say the shameless abuse of the Holocaust allowed me to endure any false charges of anti-Semitism and allowed me to speak up here and elsewhere. They don’t care about the victims of the Shoah, it’s just a talking point.
rich, that first link of yours, i saw a variation of the hill w/the castle a couple years ago. it was the first time i really grasped how the whole town was erased by the forest. i never really saw it so clearly before.
Beautiful Jewish mosaic from 6th Century Jewish synagogue in Tzippori.
link to en.wikipedia.org
ah huh. what is your point pz. because the region was a jewish religious center in the 6th century it is ok to erase the culture that’s existed there during the interim? with trees? there’s something kind of sick about this y’know.
Typical low information Hasbara. This was from a Wikipedia page which redirects from Saffuriyya. Note this on the mosaic:
link to carnegiemuseums.org
Back up the truck! A synagogue with a Zodiac? That’s because Saffuriyya was not a Jewish monoculture. In the 14 centuries between the rule of Herod Antipas and the Ottoman empire, the city had a diverse, multiethnic and mutlireligious population of some 30,000 living in peaceful coexistence.
Before the Wikipedia page was hijacked by the Hasbarists to point to Tzippori there was a section on the history of Saffuriyya which is still there:
Cattle fodder? Making the desert bloom my ass.
Does anyone know what happened to the Tzippori’s Jewish and Christian residents after the Islamic invasion? Were they forcibly converted? Driven out? Was their culture erased?
It would be interesting to find out. Any clues?
See here for more details of the failure of the Moshav movement at Tzippori and the involvement of Moshe Dayan’s father:
link to books.google.com
None of the above although there was some (understandable) conversions after the disastrous Battle of Hittin during the Crusades. Note that Nazareth is only a few miles away and it was majority Christian until the Muslims fled to it following the Nakba. Even so — as was described to me by a Christian in Nazareth — the Muslims and Christians got along historically and to this day. The mayor of Nazareth Illit has been having an ongoing war on Christmas and insists on it being a Jewish only city with no Christian symbols even though it is 15% Christian. The Christians there have underground worship services because of the persecution there.
yeah, of course. that is why when they fled they fled there. they knew who their brothers were and they would be safe. these communities lived in harmony in the whole ME,for the most part, throughout history. they are certainly in solidarity in palestine today.
Annie, you may know that and I know that but my friends are being conned by this “clash of civilizations” BS. All the indigenous Christians we met kept trying to get through but alas it was for naught because of the Hasbara-inculcated fear of the scary brown Muslim. Since this is racially motivated these same Christians are also tarred as being terrorists. So at the risk of repeating myself I will speak for those who have no voice. See the upcoming Christ at the Checkpoint conference sponsored by the Bethlehem Bible College.
link to christatthecheckpoint.org
“If your end-times theology trumps the clear commands in Scripture to love neighbours and enemies, then it is time to rethink your theology.”
Jews, Romans, Greeks, Byzantines, Moslems, Zionists have all controlled Saffariya/Tzippori; a much fought over strategic Galilee town.
Travelers over the ages have found Saffariya/Tzippori at once, inhabited than desolate, thriving than besieged.
The Christians built the famous Church of St. Anne and turned it into a pilgrimage site, only to see their holy site destroyed by the Moslems.
The Zionists expelled the Moslems and one day, the Zionists will be expelled by another invader. Its’ just a matter of time.
I strongly believe, however, that the town won’t change hands during our lifetimes.
Happy New Year
It’s also not merely community between just Christians and Muslims but we all — Christians and Jews and Muslims — can live in harmony, too. See here for a way out. The conservative wings of Christianity and Judaism are captured by fear. Within the Christian tradition we have a saying, though, love conquers all fear.
link to youtube.com
Were they forcibly converted? Driven out? Was their culture erased?
You could try reading Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, Jacob Neusner, Ernest S. Frerichs, Goodenough on the history of religion and on Judaism The author notes that these synagouges resembled much more the ancient fertility cults than the teachings of the Talmudica era Rabbis. These ancient Hellenized Jews were obviously already initiated into the practices of the Greco-Roman mystery religions.
It is so good to see you posted this video, richb.
What Mark Braverman does and says should be much more widely known, especially in Christian and Jewish circles.
And in Palestinian; he sees himself as a Palestinian Jew.
As Benny Morris noted, Saffariya had had a history of anti-Yishuv activity.
A sure way to be put a Christian on the defensive is to invoke the Crusades. So, a comparison to the Crusaders is a very low bar. My Christian guide in Bethlehem longed for the day like when they were under the caliphate rather than Israeli occupation. That’s because for all the invaders — bar none — none were more brutal and barbaric than the Zionists. For example, Saladin allowed free passage to the Holy City by Christian pilgrims following fighting Richard I. Saffariya was a multi-ethnic and multi-religious city for centuries but the Zionists only allowed the Jews and destroyed the city and allowed no one to return which no other invader did.
Wow.
The First Crusade, 1096-1099, was prompted by the massacre of 3000 Christian Pilgrims in Jerusalem.
The Second Crusade, 1147-1149, was caused by the fall and massacre of the city Edessa. It was taken by the Turks and they slaughtered the entire population save for those sold in slavery.
So why should Christians be ‘defensive’ about the Crusades?
Rich says:
“..That’s because for all the invaders — bar none — none were more brutal and barbaric than the Zionists”
If these above mentioned Moslem massacres of Christians weren’t bad enough, the Holy Land saw the Crusader’s bloody annihilation of the Moslems and Jewish populations of Jerusalem.
Many, many thousands died.
And lest we forget, the Ottoman Turks also oppressed the Jewish community in Palestine. Thousands of Jews were exiled to Alexandria, Egypt, which was then under British control. In March 1917, Djemal Pasha, the local Turkish governor, ordered the deportation of all Jews in the Jaffa region and threatened a wholesale massacre against the Jews, openly declaring he would make the Jews share the fate of the Armenians. Before the war, 55,000 Jews resided in Jerusalem; by 1917, due to persecution, just 24,000 remained.
And than those nettlesome pogroms the Arabs led against the Jews in 1920. 1929, etc.
But Rich still insists, “..That’s because for all the invaders — bar none — none were more brutal and barbaric than the Zionists
A wished for return to the Caliphate under which the Armenian (Christian) genocide of one million or more occurred? The slaughter of Ottoman Greeks Christians and the centuries the Ottoman caliphs enslaved the Balkans ?
Richard. I know you’re not an ignoramous, so what gives?
Here’s what gives. Given all that you said and adding that the Palestinians were called upon in WWI by the British to fight the Ottoman oppressors (in return for self-determination that they were shafted out of) they still would prefer that to Israeli occupation. I’m talking about Christians and even Armenian Christians. That’s how bad the occupation is. I suggest you do what I did and go to Nazareth and Bethlehem and talk to the Christians who live there. While it sounds pessimistic there is a root of optimism in this. That’s because the core of the problem is not Judaism nor Christianity nor Islam. It’s Zionism. If Zionism is gone all of the three major monotheistic religions can live in peace like that did before Zionism showed up. Because of the Zionist oppression the Christians are leaving. Before they go please talk to them.
Back way up Rich.
‘[T]he Palestinians were called upon in WWI by the British to fight the Ottoman oppressors’, AND THEY DID NOT ANSWER THE CALL.
The ‘Palestinian’ Arabs remained loyal to the Turks while the Jews of Palestine in their Zion Mule Corp and NILI spy ring fought against the Turks and saved many, many allied lives.
Maybe Jewish support of the allies had some bearing on the ‘Palestinians’ getting shafted by HMG. Who knows.
Only the Amir Feisel’s family from Arabia joined the British (in exchange for gold Sovereigns).
Rich said:
“..That’s because for all the invaders — bar none — none were more brutal and barbaric than the Zionists”
This is a patently idiotic statement that even your fellow travelers here at Mondoweiss can’t support.
I defy anyone of you to substantiate Rich’s baseless claim, because Rich, apparently cannot. Prove Rich’s claim is correct and I’ll contribute $36 to Phil W. or any Palestinian organization (that uses PayPal). *no pun intended*
What rubbish!
Back way up Rich. ‘[T]he Palestinians were called upon in WWI by the British to fight the Ottoman oppressors’, AND THEY DID NOT ANSWER THE CALL.
That’s the usual hasbara line that we have addressed here repeatedly in the past. The assurances contained in President Wilson’s 14 Points Speech were not conditioned on any fighting: XII . . .”the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development”. link to wwi.lib.byu.edu
Neither was the pledge in the Anglo-French Declaration of November 7, 1918 – a fact Balfour admitted in a declassified Cabinet Memo (see the link below).
Palestine was included in the territory that Britain had pledged would be Arab and independent. That agreement was described as a treaty obligation to the Sharif of Mecca and General Allenby said that the assistance of Faisal’s forces had been invaluable.
Balfour himself had personally circulated the detailed memorandum and maps to the Eastern Committee of the War Cabinet on December 5, 1918 which said that Great Britain had pledged to the Sharif of Mecca that Palestine itself would be Arab and independent. See the reference to the attendees and the distribution of E.C. 2201 in “E.C. 41st Minutes” (CAB 27/24, C372213 ). During the first portion of the meeting on the subject of Syria Lord Curzon, the Chairman, said:
“First, as regards the facts of the case. The various pledges are given in the Foreign Office paper* [E.C. 2201] which has been circulated, and I need only refer to them in the briefest possible words. In their bearing on Syria they are the following: First there was the letter to King Hussein from Sir Henry McMahon of the 24th October 1915, in which we gave him the assurance that the Hedjaz, the red area which we commonly call Mesopotamia, the brown area or Palestine, the Acre-Haifa enclave, the big Arab areas (A) and (B), and the whole of the Arabian peninsula down to Aden should be Arab and independent.” (E.C. 41st minutes, for 5 December 1918, page 6).
…
In the second half of the meeting on the subject of Palestine he said:
“The Palestine position is this. If we deal with our commitments, there is first the general pledge to Hussein in October 1915, under which Palestine was included in the areas as to which Great Britain pledged itself that they should be Arab and independent in the future . . . the United Kingdom and France – Italy subsequently agreeing – committed themselves to an international administration of Palestine in consultation with Russia, who was an ally at that time . . . A new feature was brought into the case in November 1917, when Mr Balfour, with the authority of the War Cabinet, issued his famous declaration to the Zionists that Palestine ‘should be the national home of the Jewish people, but that nothing should be done – and this, of course, was a most important proviso – to prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. Those, as far as I know, are the only actual engagements into which we entered with regard to Palestine.” (E.C. 41st minutes, for 5 December 1918, page 16)
E.C. 2201 contained two documents:
Former Reference: GT 6506A
Title: Maps illustrating the Settlement of Turkey and the Arabian Peninsula.
Author: Political Intelligence Department, Foreign Office
Date 21 November 1918
Catalogue reference CAB 24/72
link to nationalarchives.gov.uk
Former Reference: GT 6506
Title: The Settlement of Turkey and the Arablan Peninsula.
Author: Political Intelligence Department, Foreign Office
Date 21 November 1918
Catalogue reference CAB 24/72
link to nationalarchives.gov.uk
The ‘Council of Four Conference Held in the Prime Minister’s Flat at 23 Rue Nitot, Paris, on Thursday, March 20, 1919, at 3 p.m. was attended by Prime Ministers Lloyd George, Clemenceau, and Orlando. President Wilson, Lord Balfour, and General Allenby also attended. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu That meeting resulted in the dispatch of the King-Crane Commission to determine the wishes of the inhabitants. There was a discussion regarding the McMahon letters to King Hussein. Lloyd George argued a) they were the basis of the Sykes-Picot agreement; b) they were a binding treaty commitment; and c) that the League of Nations mandate (and the Balfour Declaration) could not be used to put aside the bargain with King Hussein. Lloyd George also said Arab help had been essential and General Allenby claimed it had been invaluable. FYI, there was no mention whatever of the Zionist mule corps or the Jewish Legion.
Balfour’s memo from the Paris Peace Conference made it perfectly clear that the UK was betraying the Arabs and had no intention of honoring any of the promises regarding their independence. He also mentions the French territorial interests in Syria; Palestine; and Mesopotamia as three different geographical areas:
See Nº. 242. Memorandum by Mr. Balfour (Paris) respecting Syria, Palestine, and Mesopotamia’ [132187/2117/44A] link to scribd.com
Wow. Note how the Palestinians don’t deserve self-determination, a basic human right. It’s clear with such racism why the Israelis haven’t done the right thing voluntarily for over 63 years and why Omar Barghouti is right about BDS. They need to be forced.
thank you rich b and hostage. both of you are rocking this comment section!
Margaret Macmillan’s ‘Peacemakers’ has a chapter, to my mind invaluable, on Palestine and the 1919 treaties. Curzon, she says, came to regard Balfour as an evil man. Balfour for his part came up with two reasons for denying ‘self-determination’ to the Palestinians – that the Arabs had huge lands anyway and surely shouldn’t begrudge a small ‘notch’ (strange choice of words) to the Jewish claimants and also that the true constituency for determining the fate of Palestine included all Jewish people everywhere. The latter point was pressed on Woodrow Wilson by Louis Brandeis. Both arguments had a great future, didn’t they?
Balfour had indeed never meant what he said in the Declaration about the rights of non-Jewish people – he even briefed the press accordingly (Macmillan, p.428), so that the Times headline announcing the Declaration was bluntly and quite realistically ‘Palestine for the Jews’.
British (later Anglo-American) Christian Zionism had very deep roots, going back at least to Henry Finch’s ‘Great Restauration’ of 1621. After 300 years the great moment had come.
ditto annie. I can’t really referee the exchange with zioborg777 but the exchange between witty and hostage can only be compared with Monty Python’s Black Knight. Poor Witty, he is so clueless, he seems totally oblivious that hostage has chopped off his limbs.
Hostage also note that the Palestinians are being denied self-determination for mutually contradictory reasons. So, according to PZ, the Palestinians should not have self-determination because they didn’t shake off the Ottomans, or to use the Arabic word for shake off, have an Intifada. Now they are not to have self-determination because they are seeking to shake off their current oppressors. This is typical of an oppressor or tyrant, blame the victim.
It’s true that violence and oppression is deeply embedded into the human condition (and is why both Roman Catholics and Protestants hold to the doctrine of Original Sin). What’s shocking about the latest Zionist form of this is the utter shamelessness of it. You start pushing me on the history of violence and anti-Semitism in the history of Christianity and I will readily admit it. (Those amongst my friends who deny the violence of Christianity are curiously enough also Christian Zionists. Hmm.) I will also add that the root cause of this corruption of Christianity is the same as what is currently corrupting Judaism, the conflation of faith and the sword of the state. Until Constantine Christianity was a religion of peace but after that it’s been a (literally) bloody mess.
Hostage also note that the Palestinians are being denied self-determination for mutually contradictory reasons.
The Organization of American States has a chapter on the Fundamental Rights and Duties of States that reflects the public international law of the Americas circa 1948. Articles 10 & 11 provide:
In Costa Rica for example, the constitution has forbidden a standing military since 1949. The peoples of Arab Palestine and Transjordan declared a joint kingdom and federal union in the portions of the territory of Palestine that were inhabited by the two peoples. Jordan was recognized and admitted as a full member state entitled to the protections of the UN Charter regarding territorial integrity. The dissolution of the union did not effect the right of self determination of the Palestinians or their entitlement to a state. For example, The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 201 Reporter’s Note 3 explains that: “The United States will treat States the territory of which is under foreign military occupation as continuing to exist.”
BTW, it was a Judaic synagogue in the 6th century. Rabbinic Judaism did not crystallize until the 10th century thanks to the efforts of Saadyah Gaon and his colleagues.
The members of the 6th century Tzippori Judaic community might have been closer to Karaitism than to Rabbinic Judaism. In any case their descendants almost certainly became Muslims whose descendants were almost certainly ethnically cleansed by E. European ethnic Ashkenazi colonial settlers, whose ancestors were almost certainly converts of E. European or Southern Russian origin.
Rabbinic Judaism or Rabbinism has been the mainstream form of Judaism since the 6th century CE, after the codification of the Talmud. Rabbinic Judaism became the predominant stream within the Jewish diaspora between the 2nd to 6th centuries, with the redaction of the oral law and the Talmud as the authoritative interpretation of Jewish scripture and to encourage the practice of Judaism in the absence of Temple sacrifice and other practices no longer possible. Rabbinic Judaism is based on the belief that at Mount Sinai, Moses received directly from God the Torah (Pentateuch) as well as additional oral explanation of the revelation, the “oral law,” that was transmitted by Moses to the people in oral form.
Mainstream Rabbinic Judaism contrasts with Karaite Judaism which does not recognize the oral law as a divine authority, and the Rabbinic procedures used to interpret Jewish scripture.
Southern Russia. Khazaria?
Cheers Annie – Im a big Real News/Paul Jay fan……
not only does he lead the way in terms of north american I/P coverage alot of the time ( for a news program) – his economic contributors are second to none….A great resource to be sure.
cheers back dan. i hope everyone opens the very first link and checks out the awesome collection videos they’ve produced on i/p.
Great post Annie. For folks to understand the systematic expulsion of the Palestinian people and the well thought out thievery of their land one needs to read about the history of the racist JNF.
Have been trying to talk with Jewish friends about the JNF for decades. They go mentally blind and deaf when it comes to Jewish racism and the apartheid state of Israel. Monumental shifts taking place
Real News is a treasure chest. My youngest daughter and I were just re watching the Real News interview with former weapons inspector Robert Kelly on the latest IAEA on Iran.
The Race for Iran sure has accelerated.
Christian Zionists recommend that Israel baptize the expropriated land as well to make it more legitimate. As for Christian Palestinians, screw them for not being white the way Jewish Israelis clearly are.