‘We must expel Arabs and take their place': Institute for Palestine Studies publishes 1937 Ben-Gurion letter advocating the expulsion of Palestinians

Israel/Palestine
on 192 Comments

From the Institute for Palestine Studies:

On 3 November 2011, the self-appointed media watchdog CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) informed the Journal of Palestine Studies of an incorrect citation in an article by Illan Pappé (“The 1948 Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”) published in its autumn 2006 issue. The incorrect citation referred to a quotation by Israeli founding father David Ben-Gurion supporting the expulsion (“transfer”) of Arabs from Palestine. 

 CAMERA asked JPS to “issue a correction stating that the quote attributed to Ben-Gurion does not appear in the references cited” in JPS and its website “to prevent further erroneous uses of this quote.”   

CAMERA’s accusations (e.g., 3 February 2012) that Pappé “invented” or “fabricated” the quotation, suggesting that the Zionist leader had never supported transfer, led JPS to have the original source—Ben-Gurion’s 5 October 1937 letter to his son—translated into English. The letter vindicates Pappé’s reading of Ben-Gurion’s position on transfer and the essential accuracy of his article. While JPS regrets the lapses of citation, the 2006 article, fully consonant with the historical record, remains in our view an excellent summation of Zionist planning behind the Palestinian expulsions of 1948.

Here is the Journal for Palestine Studies official response to CAMERA (published in their winter 2012 issue), and a link to the Pappé article in question.

Also, the Institute has published a full English translation of the 1937 Ben-Gurion letter Pappe refers to (the Institute says it’s the first time an English translation of the letter has been published). It is a truly fascinating exchange between Ben-Gurion and his son Amos, who appears critical of his father’s decision to support a partition plan put forward by the Peel Commission. Here, Ben-Gurion describes how he sees partition fitting into the Zionist movement’s long term goals:

My assumption (which is why I am a fervent proponent of a state, even though it is now linked to partition) is that a Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end but the beginning.

When we acquire one thousand or 10,000 dunams, we feel elated. It does not hurt  our feelings that by this acquisition we are not in possession of the whole land. This is because this increase in possession is of consequence not only in itself, but because through it we increase our strength, and every increase in strength helps in the possession of the land as a whole. The establishment of a state, even if only on a portion of the land, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate the entire country.

We shall admit into the state all the Jews we can. We firmly believe that we can admit more than two million Jews. We shall build a multi-faceted Jewish economy– agricultural, industrial, and maritime. We shall organize an advanced defense force—a superior army which I have no doubt will be one of the best  armies in the world. At that point I am confident that we would not fail in settling in the remaining parts of the country, through agreement and understanding with our Arab neighbors, or through some other means.

Here is the entire letter:

B-G Letter translation

192 Responses

  1. Woody Tanaka
    March 28, 2012, 2:57 pm

    “We shall organize an advanced defense force—a superior army which I have no doubt will be one of the best armies in the world. At that point I am confident that we would not fail in settling in the remaining parts of the country, through agreement and understanding with our Arab neighbors, or through some other means.”

    I think that this letter constitutes prima facie evidence of a premeditated plan to engage in offensive aggressive war. It is no different than the crimes for which German leaders were hung at Nuremberg.

    • hophmi
      March 28, 2012, 5:33 pm

      “I think that this letter constitutes prima facie evidence of a premeditated plan to engage in offensive aggressive war. It is no different than the crimes for which German leaders were hung at Nuremberg.”

      Organizing an army is illegal now?

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 28, 2012, 7:27 pm

        “Organizing an army is illegal now?”

        It is if you are doing it to force your people on someone else’s land.

      • Dex
        March 28, 2012, 8:12 pm

        Hophmi: Are you Israeli, American or something else?

        I’m curious to know, considering your many posts indicate you blindly support anything Israel does.

      • Cliff
        March 29, 2012, 3:13 pm

        Hophmi is an American-Jew who hates America, evidenced by his cynical usage of the American polity and identity to play up or play down good/bad traits of Israel.

        In fact, whatever he considers positive about America is strictly through the prism of Zionism and Israel.

        He has called Palestinians Nazis before (using the lie that the Mufti represented the Palestinian people and the accompanying fallacy of guilt by association).

        I’d say 95% of what hophmi says is a lie. He is only allowed to troll Mondoweiss because he is part of a minority of Zionist voices on this site. We need him for ‘balance’.

      • Dex
        March 29, 2012, 5:50 pm

        Thanks for the update Cliff.

        So Hophmi has absolutely ZERO connection to Israel, yet, day in and day out, finds the need to come here and defend another country. Bizarre indeed…

      • Theo
        March 31, 2012, 11:08 am

        In the old days we called such act treason and people were shot or hanged for it.

      • Mooser
        April 14, 2012, 1:13 pm

        “I’d say 95% of what hophmi says is a lie. He is only allowed to troll Mondoweiss because he is part of a minority of Zionist voices on this site. We need him for ‘balance’.”

        As you know well, Cliff, I am by nature taciturn and slow to anger, but I must say I find your attitude toward Hophmi quite ungenerous. In fact, I might even suggest that you would be among the exalted company of this site’s owners if you maintained that Hophmi will, by losing the battle of ideas, be “redeemed”. Isn’t that a much nicer way to think about it?

    • pabelmont
      March 28, 2012, 5:43 pm

      This is the sort of threat that Hitler is said to have written in Mein Kampf (I’ve never read it). Zionists make a big thing about paying attention to the threats of others, even when those others have no power to carry them out (e.g., Iranians and Hamas) and use these threats as excuses to go to war — wars the Israelis wanted in the first place. The world should pay more attention to the threats of the Zionists.

      Israel’s stealing of land and water and expulsion of people (seeking Palestinian geography without Palestinian demography, as Afif Saffieh puts it) has been written down by leading Zionists from the earliest days.

    • Kathleen
      April 12, 2012, 10:57 am

      “or through some other means” Systematic illegal confiscation of Palestinian lands, destruction of Palestinian villages, killing Palestinians, ,defiance of UN resolutions, international laws. Creating an Apartheid state. Well thought out, and implemented.

  2. seafoid
    March 28, 2012, 3:29 pm

    “We shall build a multi-faceted Jewish economy– agricultural, industrial, and maritime. ”

    They didn’t succeed. Instead they built a consumer economy that imports 97% of its energy needs abd depends on Europe to buy its exports. Israel is not sustainable.

    “We shall organize an advanced defense force—a superior army which I have no doubt will be one of the best armies in the world. ”

    What did they do with it? YESHA. They would have been better off losing a war.

    “At that point I am confident that we would not fail in settling in the remaining parts of the country, through agreement and understanding with our Arab neighbors, or through some other means.”

    That sort of thinking was fine in the 1930s. But it’s 2012 now and the world has changed . Israel is still operating as if it were the 1930s .Think of all that Israelis have lost in the last 3 years to keep the occupation going. Imagine how hollowed out Israeli civil society will be by 2022. The consumer economy is a fragile beast too.

    • pabelmont
      March 28, 2012, 5:45 pm

      Israel will soon have a lot of energy from the Mediterranean gas fields — some stolen from Gaza and Turkey perhaps. But it will still depend on other countries for markets, and that gives the jiu-jitsu of BDS a chance.

  3. Hostage
    March 28, 2012, 3:58 pm

    Here is the whole money quote: What we really want is not that the land remain whole and unified. What we want is that the whole and unified land be Jewish [emphasis original]. A unified Eretz Israeli would be no source of satisfaction for me– if it were Arab. . . . My assumption (which is why I am a fervent proponent of a state, even though it is now linked to partition) is that a Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end but the beginning. . . .We shall organize . . . a superior army which I have no doubt will be one of the best armies in the world. At that point I am confident that we would not fail in settling in the remaining parts of the country, through agreement and understanding with our Arab neighbors, or through some other means.

    (the Institute says it’s the first time an English translation of the letter has been published)

    Ben Gurion actually self-published the whole letter. The full text was translated and published in an English edition in 1971. See David Ben Gurion, “Letters to Paula and the Children”, translated by Aubry Hodes, University of Pittsburg Press, 1971, page 153. Aubry Hodes rendering is in complete harmony with the translation done by the Journal for Palestine Studies. FYI Benny Morris and Shabatai Teveth both cited the letter in their works. Morris wrote that Chaim Weizmann and David Ben Gurion both saw partition as a stepping stone to further expansion and the eventual takeover of the whole of Palestine. See Benny Morris, “Righteous victims: a history of the Zionist-Arab conflict, 1881–1999″, Knopf, 1999, page 138.

    • marc b.
      March 28, 2012, 4:14 pm

      it’s not just conquest built on the ‘biblical’ imperative, or the ‘pressures of exile’, though. it’s the unalloyed racism of it all, the zionist variation on the ‘white man’s burden’, the civilizing mission, the intellectual/emotional justification for robbing someone of their property. and if anyone knows the context, some insight on the disagreement between ben-gurion and his son would help. was the ‘emotional’ position taken by his son that ben-gurion alluded to, a less muscular, military solution to the arab problem? the irony of all this of course is that the ben-gurion plan to displace the arabs is being dreamt up at the same time the various purification projects are building in europe.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 28, 2012, 7:28 pm

        Absolutely. Zionism = Racism. Always was; is now; always will be.

      • marc b.
        March 29, 2012, 8:05 am

        and how do these apologists interpret the term ‘eretz israel’ used by ben-gurion, the purported secularist? what did ben-gurion believe were the scriptural boundaries for his vision of the jewish state, the gift from god to israelis?

      • Hostage
        March 29, 2012, 2:02 pm

        and how do these apologists interpret the term ‘eretz israel’ used by ben-gurion

        Hebrew was one of the three official languages of the Mandate. The official Hebrew name for Palestine was a transliteration of the word with the two initial letters Aleph Yod suffixed as an abbreviation for “Eretz Yisrael”.

        Ben Gurion usually talked about restoring the Jewish State as it existed during the Second Commonwealth era, while leaving the door open to any developments that would enlarge the borders beyond the biblical ones.

      • Eva Smagacz
        March 29, 2012, 3:54 am

        There is no “white man’s burden”. They have no intention to civilize natives. They wanted to get rid of that inferior ethnicity from “their” property. Similar ideas of cleansing nation states of inferior ethnicity were being lauded in the thirties in Europe by various fascist parties. What a depressing meeting of minds.

      • marc b.
        March 29, 2012, 11:18 am

        There is no “white man’s burden”. They have no intention to civilize natives.

        that’s a fact. it has been part of the zionists’ tool kit, to rationalize their planned land grabs, from herzl to ben-gurion and beyond. in his letter, ben-gurion states that the arabs are not ‘qualified’ to ‘exploit’ the land, but that the arabs, if they aren’t too dense to realize it, will be able to benefit ‘materially’ and ‘politically’ from zionist exploitation of the land. that’s essentially how herzl responded to jewish critics of his plan for settling eretz israel, that exposure to the ‘arabs’ would diminish the european settlers. on the contrary, herzl argued, arab exposure to the settlers would lift the arabs culturally, economically, etc. but how is that working out?

    • seafoid
      March 28, 2012, 5:03 pm

      I presume that they thought the Palestinians would give up in the face of such Jewish power and savoir faire. But what were they actually thinking ? Did they expect the Palestinians to convert to Judaism ?
      Whatever, they didn’t anticipate an Erez Israel that was 50% Palestinian( drinking qahwa mazbootah instead of Nescafe) 3 generations later. Model risk is such a bitch.

      • Hostage
        March 28, 2012, 7:28 pm

        I presume that they thought the Palestinians would give up in the face of such Jewish power and savoir faire.

        Nope they’ve always relied on a super power, like the British or US to prevent a Palestinian uprising. That’s why the US and Israel are still making anachronistic demands that Palestine be a demilitarized state with no foreign alliances. That sort of crap went by the boards after Wilson’s 14 points speech underscored the inherent right of the formerly neutralized state of Belgium to defend itself in the future.

        Obama has had to engage in artless circumlocutions to claim that Israel has a legal right to defend itself, while the Palestinians do not. It’s embarrassing to watch leaders justify a blockade on Palestinians or Iranians to keep others from obtaining a few weapons that Israel possesses in abundance.

      • RoHa
        March 29, 2012, 12:54 am

        “Did they expect the Palestinians to convert to Judaism ?”

        No, they expected that the Palestinians would go (not necessarily voluntarily) and live somewhere else in the “Arab homeland”. Like Zionists of today, they thought all the Arabs were pretty much the same, and that there was nothing wrong with pushing them out of Palestine because the other Arab countries were their “homeland”.

    • proudzionist777
      March 28, 2012, 6:47 pm

      No Hostage, here is the money quote:

      “But if we are compelled to use force – not in order to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev or Transjordan, but in order to guarantee our right to settle there – our force will enable us to do so.”

      Also, assuming the ‘expelling the Arabs’ quote is accurate, Ben Gurion was clearly speaking only of the Arabs of the Negev.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 28, 2012, 7:32 pm

        But the problem, pudnazi, is that the Jews have no right to settle in the Negev or Transjordan against the wishes of the people whose land that it. Using force only compounds the crime.

        And if the Ben Gurion is “only” speaking of ethnically cleansing the Arabs of the Negev, he should have been hung for crimes against humanity.

      • Hostage
        March 28, 2012, 7:38 pm

        No Hostage, here is the money quote:

        Your quotes indicate that Ben Gurion intended to impose Jewish sovereignty on the overwhelming Arab majority through the use of force.

        Neither of the ones you’ve mentioned alter the fact that he had qualified these statements by saying “What we really want is not that the land remain whole and unified. What we want is that the whole and unified land be Jewish” – and that “a Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end but the beginning” of the efforts to achieve that goal.

      • Cliff
        March 29, 2012, 9:36 am

        pudzionist666,

        Ben-Gurion was talking about intentions. But intentions mean nothing if the end result of your actions is that you ethnically cleanse a group of people.

        Whether the intention is pure cartoon villain hate or solve the Jewish problem by providing land and housing – it was ethnic cleansing.

        Why don’t you go up to your European or American, non-Jewish friends (if you have any) and tell them you’d like to get rid of them and their families and friends if they don’t make way for Jewish refugees.

    • Fredblogs
      March 28, 2012, 6:52 pm

      And Morris admitted that he screwed up the translation and that the original says that we _don’t_ want to expel the Arabs.

      • Hostage
        March 28, 2012, 7:55 pm

        And Morris admitted that he screwed up the translation and that the original says that we _don’t_ want to expel the Arabs.

        Please give us a citation to this letter by Morris, like I did. Morris didn’t “translate” anything. He simply cited Ben Gurion’s Hebrew original in “Letter’s to Paula and the Children” and said he intended to take over the whole territory.

        Morris can’t do damage control on statements like: “What we want is that the whole and unified land be Jewish.” and the statement that after a superior army was in place, Jews would be able to settle in all of the territory with or without Arab consent. Those statements and motives have been independently verified by other translators, like Aubrey Hodes.

      • Fredblogs
        March 29, 2012, 10:44 am

        Morris got it right that the original was that we must not expel the Arabs in the Hebrew version of his book and screwed it up in the English translation of his book. Then admitted later that he had screwed up the translation.

      • Hostage
        March 29, 2012, 3:41 pm

        Then admitted later that he had screwed up the translation.

        Once again. We are not talking about the same thing. In the citation that I provided above, Morris didn’t translate or quote the letter. He provided his analysis of the attitudes of both Weizmann and Ben Gurion that partition was just a stepping stone to the eventual takeover of the entire territory of Palestine. Morris cited the letter in a footnote as one example of the available evidence.

        Both Moshe Shertok and Ben Gurion testified to the UN that all of Palestine had been granted to the Jews and was not part of the territory in which Arabs had been promised national sovereignty. They said that Arabs had plenty of other countries and considerable territory elsewhere in which they would have to look in order to satisfy their national aspirations, e.g. link to unispal.un.org

        The contents of this letter and the preponderance of the other evidence prove beyond any doubt that the Jewish Agency planned to ignore the boundaries of partition, displace the Arabs, and colonize all of Palestine by force – because that is exactly what has transpired in the last 60 years.

  4. Fredblogs
    March 28, 2012, 4:25 pm

    Except that according to CAMERA, the translation you are using left out the “not”. So you have a false translation there. Which doesn’t prove anything.

    • Woody Tanaka
      March 28, 2012, 7:33 pm

      Prove it, Fred. CAMERA is known as a hasbara outfit. If they said they sky was blue, I’d look up.

      (Oh, and where’s that proof of the offers of compensation the Israelis supposedly made that the Palestinians rejected.”)

      • Hostage
        March 28, 2012, 8:43 pm

        Prove it, Fred. CAMERA is known as a hasbara outfit. If they said they sky was blue, I’d look up.

        Hell yes, they can’t even read the UN Charter without misquoting it and that’s published in English. After I pointed out a misrepresentation about the scope of Article 80, they issued an equally false “clarification” and claimed the former version contained a typo.

        link to mondoweiss.net

        The new version is just as false and misleading:

        Article 80 of the U.N. Charter preserved this Jewish right to settlement by specifying that:

        nothing in the [U.N. Charter's chapter on the administration of Mandate territory] shall be construed … to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or peoples or the terms of existing international instruments. (This updated version of the quote corrects an earlier typographical error.)

        link to camera.org

        The fact is that Chapter XII is titled “International Trusteeship System” and it’s provisions did not preserve the privilege of Jewish immigration or settlement on state and waste land that were mentioned in the old mandate.

        That’s because the General Assembly noted that the terms of Chapter XI: Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories were a treaty obligation with immediate force and effect that were applicable to all of the member states which did not require the conclusion of any trusteeship agreements (see UN GA resolution 9/1).

        That Chapter finally required the British to develop self-government and to take due account of the political aspirations of the non-Jewish majority. It made the interests of the actual inhabitants of the territory the paramount consideration, not foreign immigration. It was incompatible with the superior privileges granted to the Jewish minority in the areas of immigration and settlement on state lands and waste lands by the defunct League and its Permanent Mandates Commission.

    • Cliff
      March 29, 2012, 9:34 am

      Fredblogs,

      Your sources – whether they be EldersofZiyon, or Pam Gellar, or CAMERA, or other Zionist hate-sites – are irrelevant.

      • Fredblogs
        March 29, 2012, 4:19 pm

        I feel the same way about your sources. I don’t trust them.

      • Cliff
        March 29, 2012, 4:23 pm

        Of course you wouldn’t.

        My sources aren’t hate-sites and Zionist blogs.

      • Fredblogs
        March 29, 2012, 5:12 pm

        No, your sources are anti-Israel hate sites and pro-Palestinian blogs.

      • Hostage
        March 29, 2012, 6:17 pm

        Okay I:
        a) downloaded the Hebrew original that the Institute for Palestine Studies obtained from the Ben Gurion Archives: link to palestine-studies.org
        b) I OCR’d it with ABBYY FineReader Online: link to finereader.abbyyonline.com

        c) Then I pasted this text from page 3 into Google Translate, which rendered:
        אנו צריכים לגרש ערבים ולקחת מקומם.
        as:
        “We must expel Arabs and take their place.”

      • marc b.
        March 29, 2012, 8:25 pm

        he got you cliff. i know you are, but what am i? you’ll think twice before crossing swords with breadflogs again.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 29, 2012, 8:42 pm

        you rock hostage

      • RoHa
        March 29, 2012, 8:59 pm

        ABBYY FineReader, Google Translate, and the Hebrew language are all anti-Semitic.

      • Hostage
        March 29, 2012, 11:00 pm

        ABBYY FineReader, Google Translate, and the Hebrew language are all anti-Semitic.

        I guess that the funniest thing is that, like all parliamentarians, Ben Gurion appears to have reserved the right to revise and extend his remarks for the record. I gather his estate held copyright in either version: the 1937 original published by the online archives, and the 1968 sanitized version that appeared in the Hebrew edition of Letters to Paula.

        Efraim Karsh, CAMERA, and Wikiquote are still peddling the now defunct “mistranslation” story, i.e. link to en.wikiquote.org.

      • Cliff
        March 30, 2012, 9:38 am

        When I put the time and effort in my posts (like Hostage), I cite the documentary record using mainstream news articles, mainstream NGOs, and the UN.

        I do not cite some blog’s editorial – even if I agree with the editorial.

        The bottom-line is simple, Fredblogs : you support war crimes when committed by Jewish nationalism. I never support war crimes in any situation. My comment history is open to anyone to verify these statements.

        Whereas, we can easily pick out the disgusting things you say daily without even having to swift through the sewage of your comment page.

      • Bing Bong
        March 30, 2012, 11:37 am

        To me this does not appear to be the “handwritten letter” Morris read in answer to the problems that arose regarding his original Ben Gurion quote. This document is typed and therefore not the document Morris used which caused him to omit the quote from subsequent editions of his book. Here he expains the reason for the ommision….

        “The problem was that in the original handwritten copy of the letter deposited in the IDF Archive, which I consulted after my quote was criticized, there were several words crossed out in the middle of the relevant sentence, rendering what remained as “We must expel the Arabs …” But Ben-Gurion rarely made corrections to anything he had written, and this passage was not consonant with the spirit of the paragraph in which it was embedded. It was suggested that the crossing out was done by some other hand, later — and that the sentence, when the words that were crossed out were restored, was meant by Ben-Gurion to say and said exactly the opposite (“We must not expel the Arabs … ”).” link to commentarymagazine.com

        My partner who is a native Hebrew speaker has confirmed that the relevant text in the typed letter to Amos says (in her words) “pushed away”.

        Clearly the JPS have supplied a document (albeit sourced from the Ben Gurion Archives) that is not the one Morris refers to, and based their translation upon this instead of the handwritten primary source.

        I hope this is helpful, apologies if I’ve got anything wrong.

      • Fredblogs
        March 30, 2012, 12:52 pm

        Two problems with that. First, you may have left out the negation, the “We do not want to nor”. Second, the “Hebrew copy” they say they have is typed, not handwritten. It could easily have been edited by them. Oh, I see from Bing Bong that that is exactly what happened, a handwritten original was tampered with and that typed copy was produced from it.

      • Bing Bong
        March 30, 2012, 1:12 pm

        I wouldn’t suggest they edited or changed the doc from the Ben Gurion Archive because its easy to show where it’s translation would differ from the original upon publication. They have done something equally sloppy as that would be nefarious though, by not actually translating the primary source like they seem to think they have.

        Perhaps they were unaware of what typed Hebrew looks like as opposed to handwritten, because as a trick or a sneaky chance to ‘prove’ a political point it just isn’t that cunning. Although many will believe it, just not those that matter I guess.

        They really should get access to the original and publish a translation/interpretation.

      • Hostage
        March 30, 2012, 3:39 pm

        First, you may have left out the negation, the “We do not want to nor”.

        LOL! Why do you suppose our Israeli trolls are so quiet about that Fred? I put the whole document in Google Translate. There is no negation in that entire passage from page 3, You and the folks at CAMERA can verify that with someone who reads Hebrew, like I did.

        Oh, I see from Bing Bong that that is exactly what happened, a handwritten original was tampered with and that typed copy was produced from it.

        The claim that someone, beside the Ben Gurion family, ever “tampered” with the original letter is a matter of speculation. Experts agree that it already contained the correction when it was first deposited in the State Archives in the 1970s.

        There’s ample evidence that Ben Gurion and others revised and destroyed documents, censored comments recorded by stenographers, and omitted or lied about facts recorded by others to create “real” fake documents of history. See Paragraphs 15-25 of Véronique Meimoun, Creation and Manipulation of Archives, Bulletin du Centre de recherche français à Jérusalem [En ligne], 4 | 1999, link to bcrfj.revues.org

        That’s why some of the typed manuscripts produced for Ben Gurion’s publishers and the documents in the Ben Gurion Online Archives contain the emphasis and corrections found in the handwritten original. It appears that Benny Morris has adopted two contradictory interpretations based upon political expediency. Flushed with the success of the 1967 war, Ben Gurion may have done exactly the same thing when he published “Letters to Paula” in 1968.

      • proudzionist777
        March 30, 2012, 6:13 pm

        The sentence, “We must not expel the Arabs … ” is more in consonance with the later sentence, “But if we are compelled to use force – not in order to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev or Transjordan, but in order to guarantee our right to settle there – our force will enable us to do so.”

        No matter how you read it, BG was talking about the Arabs of the Negev, not all the Arab in Palestine.

      • Hostage
        March 30, 2012, 6:39 pm

        They have done something equally sloppy as that would be nefarious though, by not actually translating the primary source like they seem to think they have.

        No they haven’t, because that’s an accurate transcript of the handwritten original.

        You’re asking the Journal to use text which, according to the experts, had already been blotted-out of the original when it was deposited in the State Archives. It had been replaced with the text “We must expel Arabs and take their place”. Even if you suspect that handwritten correction is a falsification, it appears that Ben Gurion, et al are the ones behind it.

      • Hostage
        March 30, 2012, 7:04 pm

        I wouldn’t suggest they edited or changed the doc from the Ben Gurion Archive because its easy to show where it’s translation would differ from the original upon publication.

        You know it’s trivially easy to show that, even the people who think the text is a falsification, admit that it was done before the original was deposited, photographed, and transcribed in the late 1970s by the Israeli State Archives. Here is an extract from a 1999 article which explains that even after Morris became aware of the situation it did NOT change his mind about Ben Gurion’s intentions regarding transfer:

        25The letter written by Ben Gurion to his son Amos dated October 5, 1937 is certainly the best known Israeli example of falsification of archives. There is ample consensus concerning this letter, and the experts all agree today that it was falsified between the time it was written and the end of the seventies when it was deposited in the archives of the State of Israel. The original document contains a rectification: a sentence and a half are scribbled over in ink. The editors involved in the publication of Ben Gurion’s letters noticed that the ink used to cross out the passage was different from the one used in the rest of the letter. Through modern techniques, the publishing house succeeded in restoring the original version by recovering the hidden words. In the damaged version Ben Gurion states very clearly that he is in favor of a transfer of the population, as stipulated in the recommendations of the Peel Commission Report of 1937, which recommended moving populations between the future Jewish and Arab states. Ben Gurion wrote to his son: “We must expel the Arabs and take their place…”. The original restored version states the exact opposite. In fact Ben Gurion wrote: “ We must not expel the Arabs and take their place.” Because the negation was removed, the meaning of the sentence was totally corrupted and numerous, credulous Israeli researchers, never believing for one minute that the letter was not authentic, used this document as such in their works.

        26 26A fierce controversy flared up among Israeli and foreign researchers, in particular Benny Morris, Shabtai Teveth and Efraim Karsh who more or less openly rejected any part in the falsification of the letter. Because works in French which brought this controversy to the public’s attention implied that Benny Morris was responsible and left doubts as to his rigor and intellectual honesty22, it is worth summarizing the facts briefly in particular since a recapitulation in chronological order is sufficient to clear him totally. In theory, a researcher is supposed to quote his references accurately, and it is commonplace among historians to use quotations from the works of their colleagues without further verification. This excessive trust, exhibited by many researchers, can perhaps be levelled against Benny Morris. In 1985, Shabtai Teveth, the biographer of Ben Gurion and a researcher at the Sde Boker Center published a book on Ben Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs in English. In the English version, Ben Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs, published by Oxford University Press, Shabtai Tebveth quotes, page 189, Ben Gurion’s truncated sentence, without the negation. In 1987, Benny Morris, an Israeli historian and journalist relying on the English version of Shabtai Teveth’s book23, unknowingly used the falsified version of Ben Gurion’s letter to buttress his thesis that in his heart of hearts, Ben Gurion was in favor, in the 1930s and 1940s, of an Arab transfer. Benny Morris did not however base all his contentions on this single sentence. In 1991, Benny Morris finally had this book on the issue of Palestinian refugees translated into Hebrew. Between the publication of the English version and the Hebrew version, he discovered that Ben Gurion’s letter has been tampered with, and carefully restored the sentence as Ben Gurion wrote it in the Hebrew version of his book.

        27 The rectified letter was not enough to change Morris’ opinion as to Ben Gurion’s desire for transfer. The scratched out sentence was only part of the evidence which was supported by other more crucial data. In 1996 Benny Morris published an article in the Israeli magazine Alpaim in which he discusses the falsification of the document and accuses Shabtai Teveth of having disseminated Ben Gurion’s faked statement in English the world over despite the fact that he had obviously seen the original.24 In 1985 Shabtai Teveth’s Ben Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs was published by Shoken press in Hebrew, the same year the English version of the book appeared. On page 314 he quotes Ben Gurion’s letter in its entirety with no parts crossed out. Benny Morris nevertheless stops short of accusing Shabtai Teveth of misconduct. Despite the evidence, the Israeli-born historian and London-based lecturer Efraim Karsh, perhaps misled by appearances and because the fabricated version of Ben Gurion’s letter supported Morris’ highly contested theories, insinuated that Benny Morris was responsible for the falsification

        28 The identity of the true falsifier is unknown but the vituperations from all sides have soured the university debate. The eventuality that a similar corruption of the archives could reoccur cannot be totally excluded. Although the chances are infinitely small, the risk is there.

        link to bcrfj.revues.org

      • Bing Bong
        March 30, 2012, 7:04 pm

        “The claim that someone, beside the Ben Gurion family, ever “tampered” with the original letter is a matter of speculation. ”

        “Morris was in no position to “confirm” any “mistranslation.””

        There was enough of a doubt for Benny Morris to subsequently omit the quote after consulting the original. Either way this blog post title which displays the Morris misquote

        “‘We must expel Arabs and take their place’: Institute for Palestine Studies publishes 1937 Ben-Gurion letter advocating the expulsion of Palestinians”

        is not accurate as the original letter has not been interpreted/translated. The original with the (and lets be honest eh?…totally incongruous 180 degree turnaround within the paragraph) strike-through has not been consulted by JPS.

        “There’s ample evidence that Ben Gurion and others revised and destroyed documents, censored comments recorded by stenographers, and omitted or lied about facts recorded by others to create “real” fake documents of history. ”

        So you think this is a ‘real fake document’ to (for some reason) suggest that he advocates compulsary expulsion where the original that says “We must not expel the Arabs … ” has been revised by the use of crossing out to claim “We must expel the Arabs”? That’s even less likely than a totally incongruous 180 degree turnaround.

      • Hostage
        March 30, 2012, 8:55 pm

        There was enough of a doubt for Benny Morris to subsequently omit the quote after consulting the original. Either way this blog post title which displays the Morris misquote

        That is not the way scholars handle redacted documents. You go ahead and quote the text verbatim and note the contents of any deleted material or questioned material in the footnotes.

        Interestingly enough, Ben Gurion’s publishers used modern methods to recover the deleted text and decided to use that instead of the final archived handwritten version without alerting their readers to the substitution.

        This is all about scoring points, since Ben Gurion refused to repatriate any Palestinian refugees and made his support for transfer and maintenance of the status quo abundantly clear.

      • Hostage
        March 30, 2012, 9:21 pm

        So you think this is a ‘real fake document’ to (for some reason) suggest that he advocates compulsary expulsion where the original that says “We must not expel the Arabs … ” has been revised by the use of crossing out to claim “We must expel the Arabs”? That’s even less likely than a totally incongruous 180 degree turnaround.

        Ben Gurion was publishing this letter in 1968 after he had retired from politics. He cherry-picked letters that made him look good or prescient.

        Everyone already knew that hundreds of thousands of Arabs had been driven out of Palestine, the DMZs, and the Golan – and that Israel had adopted policies and martial law to prevent them from ever returning to the Israeli farms, towns, and villages that had sprung-up after the Arabs had been removed.

        You’d have to be pretty gullible to accept that Ben Gurion really meant “We must not displace the Arabs”, but we will use our superior army to take over and settle Jews, so that the whole undivided country can be Jewish.

      • lysias
        April 3, 2012, 6:57 pm

        I don’t see any word for “not” in that Hebrew sentence.

      • Mooser
        April 14, 2012, 1:27 pm

        “I feel the same way about your sources. I don’t trust them.”

        I know what you mean Freddy! I mean after all, when we consider the fact that in every other situation even remotely similar to the Zionist colonisation of Israel, the elite colonisers first stated that the new settlers were entering the land as supplicants to the inhabitants, and acknowledged the cultural, religious, political, and military equality or even superiority of the inhabitants, and the leaders continuously told the new settlers they should be grateful to be accepted on any terms, let alone as equals.
        Only in the case of Israel, and in no other situation like this, do we find these declarations of superiority and the intent to basically steal the place.
        Now, how on earth can these awful anti-Zionists tell us that the Zionists acted completely unlike any other colonial project in the whole world, ever?
        Gotta be anti-Semitism!

        If we get past the clumsy sarcasm (it’s early yet) doesn’t it ever strike you, Freddy dear, that in order to accept the Zionist version and/or interpretation of events, we have to believe that the Zionists acted unlike any other people in the world, ever? It may be the kosher reading of events, but it’s damned hard to swallow.

  5. Scott
    March 28, 2012, 4:37 pm

    Do you think there was “projection” involved when the hasbara crew used to complain that a small Palestinian state was only a “first stage” in a plan to destroy Israel?

  6. Mooser
    March 28, 2012, 5:56 pm

    Why do we have to go through this mishegos over and over? Can’t we just assume Zionism and its colonial project, Israel, was planned and executed pretty much like every other project of its type through history? Right down to taking advantage of the exigencies which beset the Jewish population in Europe and elsewhere to provide motivate and existentially terrified raw material. No, we have to prove over and over again that Zionists act pretty much like anybody else, of any religion or culture, that conceives of and is able to execute a colonial project. No we have to prove over and over again that the Zionists will follow a typical and unfortunately, quite human course.

    This one I answered for myself a long time ago, and the answer still serves, and has never let me down: How the hell do you think it was done? What would it take to do it to you? (scare you out of your house and community) Well, that’s how the Zionists did it.
    But instead, we play this absurd game. Not that I have any objection to reading anything by Hostage, seafoid and Woody, from which I always learn, and whose information I trust, but still…

    • Dex
      March 28, 2012, 8:53 pm

      Great post Mooser! You are 100 percent correct.

      There continues to be far too much debate about whether is Zionism is racist, or colonialist, or exclusivist, etc…and, unfortunately, those of us in the pro-justice camp keep falling for this trick of constant debate.

      Why? There is no debating that Zionism falls into the same catergories as Nazism, Facism, etc. An elementary analysis of history proves this, and anyone with half a brain or who isn’t brainwashed by the ideology itself can see this.

      It’s time to change the discourse from debating what Zionism “is” to strategizing how to eliminate it once and for all.

      • Eva Smagacz
        March 29, 2012, 4:02 am

        This endless repetition is vital. Mondoweiss is visited by new people all the time. All they need to see is that hasbara is contrary to facts. Google and You Tube does the rest.

      • Mooser
        April 14, 2012, 1:30 pm

        “Great post Mooser! You are 100 percent correct.”

        So correct I came back later and repeated myself. Oh well, tell ‘em what you’re gonna tell ‘em, then tell ‘em (twice), and than tell ‘em what you just told ‘em, that’s my motto!

  7. hophmi
    March 28, 2012, 5:56 pm

    I’m not clear on how this is a response. CAMERA’s argument was that the translation was wrong and that the letter said the opposite, and that is Morris’s position as well as of 2001.

    It’s amazing to me, that, even with this, you continue to take the quote completely out of context to make it seem as if Ben-Gurion simply said under all circumstances, the Arabs will be expelled. This is the full quote:

    “Let us assume that the Negev will not be allotted to the Jewish state. In such event,
    the Negev will remain barren because the Arabs have neither the competence nor
    the need to develop it or make it prosper. They already have an abundance of
    deserts but not of manpower, financial resources, or creative initiative. It is very
    probable that they will agree that we undertake the development of the Negev and
    make it prosper in return for our financial, military, organizational, and scientific
    assistance. It is also possible that they will not agree. People don’t always behave
    according to logic, common sense, or their own practical advantage. Just as you
    yourself are sometimes split conflicted between your mind and your emotions, it is
    possible that the Arabs will follow the dictates of sterile nationalist emotions and
    tell us: “We want neither your honey nor your sting. We’d rather that the Negev
    remain barren than that Jews should inhabit it.” If this occurs, we will have to talk
    to them in a different language—and we will have a different language—but such a
    language will not be ours without a state. This is so because we can no longer
    tolerate that vast territories capable of absorbing tens of thousands of Jews should
    remain vacant, and that Jews cannot return to their homeland because the Arabs
    prefer that the place [the Negev] remains neither ours nor theirs. We must expel
    Arabs and take their place. Up to now, all our aspirations have been based on an
    assumption – one that has been vindicated throughout our activities in the country
    – that there is enough room in the land for the Arabs and ourselves. But if we are
    compelled to use force – not in order to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev or
    Transjordan, but in order to guarantee our right to settle there – our force will
    enable us to do so.”

    So even in this translation, Ben-Gurion talks of expulsion only if the Arabs insist of denying Jews the right to settle in the land, even if that land is uninhabited. And by the way, if you read this entire paragraph, the sentence really almost makes no sense, because the entire paragraph is about a place that is relatively uninhabited. The CAMERA translation fits the paragraph much better and makes far more sense.

    As usual, this is a post that massively disingenuous, and using the quote the way it is used – to suggest that Ben-Gurion simply planned the expulsion of the Arabs no matter what happened, is intellectually dishonest in the extreme. I hope the pro-Palestinian movement has the integrity to stop using now that it is clear that even it is genuine (a very big if), it covers much narrower ground than is claimed.

    • Woody Tanaka
      March 28, 2012, 7:44 pm

      What Ben Gurion is saying that the rights of the people whose land it is be damned, he’s going to continue the invasion of foreigners and theft of their land, and he’s willing to commit ethnic cleansing and near genocide to do it. That you get butt hurt to find out that one of your heroes was a low life ethnic cleanser is no reason to deny reality, hoppy. The Jews had no rights in those lands; it was the Arabs to do with — or to do nothing with — as they pleased.

    • Talkback
      March 29, 2012, 8:45 am

      hophmi says: “As usual, this is a post that massively disingenuous, and using the quote the way it is used – to suggest that Ben-Gurion simply planned the expulsion of the Arabs no matter what happened, is intellectually dishonest in the extreme.”

      So tell us, hophmi. After the mandatory stopped immigration: How could Jewish separatists and terroris acquire a territory for their state and become a majority in it without war and expulsion?

      • Mooser
        April 14, 2012, 1:34 pm

        “How could Jewish separatists and terroris acquire a territory for their state and become a majority in it without war and expulsion?”

        Considering the fact that I worked my fingers to the bone slaving over a hot keyboard for days getting my “Strength Through Joy, Kosher Style” finalised and sent off to Israel, and my plan was not even given a cursory reading, they got nothing coming. They have no-one but themselves to blame.

    • Cliff
      March 29, 2012, 9:33 am

      hophmi as usual is dishonest and cites his favorite Zionist propaganda outfit, CAMERA.

      Ben-Gurion is saying that if the Arabs refuse to let people take their land so that Jewish immigrants could live on it, they should be ethnically cleansed.

      And this coincides with what the Zionists did to the Palestinians before the declaration of Israeli Statehood.

      There was no surprise Arab attack on the nascent Jewish State. In fact, the Arab armies acted far too slowly and were ill-equipped and undermanned.

    • Bing Bong
      March 30, 2012, 1:03 pm

      It’s not a genuine translation of the handwritten original, its a translation of a transcription of the original letter. Why is it that nobody (including the Jnl of Pal Studs) can see it’s typed Hebrew and not handwritten?

      Morris is clear that he consulted the handwritten original and this confirmed the mistranslation. The Jnl of Pal Studs should consult this document because blog posts like Adam Horowitz’s above are going to be called to account when it transpires that the handwritten primary source that is being questioned hasn’t actually been translated or comprehended.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 30, 2012, 2:00 pm

        “Morris is clear that he consulted the handwritten original and this confirmed the mistranslation. ”

        Nonsense. All Morris did was note his reasons for taking the actions he did. Morris was in no position to “confirm” any “mistranslation.” He may not have confidence enough in the version presented by the Archive, but even Morris admits that when the cross-outs are considered, what remains is, in fact, “We must expel the Arabs”.

        And his reasons for distrusting the end result is nothing short of rank speculation, based on Morris’s opinion that the ethnic cleanser BenGurion “rarely made corrections to anything he had written” and blaming it on unknown others. (A heck of a lot that Morris can detect from a line…)

        But ultimately, as Morris himself states, it doesn’t matter, because this isn’t the first time that the criminal BenGurion announced his plan to commit crimes against humanity against the native people and rightful owners of the land:

        But the focus by my critics on this quotation was, in any event, nothing more than (an essentially mendacious) red herring – as elsewhere, in unassailable statements, Ben-Gurion at this time repeatedly endorsed the idea of “transferring” (or expelling) Arabs, or the Arabs, out of the area of the Jewish state-to-be, either “voluntarily” or by compulsion.

      • Hostage
        March 30, 2012, 5:55 pm

        Morris is clear that he consulted the handwritten original and this confirmed the mistranslation.

        Even those who view the evidence contained in Ben Gurion’s original in the most favorable light, like Meimoun, have said that Morris was just another credulous scholar of history, not an expert on the subject of the document’s authenticity. One of Ben Gurion’s publishers had to employ modern forensics techniques to reveal the contents that had been blotted out.

        The Jnl of Pal Studs should consult this document because blog posts like Adam Horowitz’s above are going to be called to account when it transpires that the handwritten primary source that is being questioned hasn’t actually been translated or comprehended.

        The experts who looked into the matter have only said that the original was altered or corrected sometime between 1937 and the late 1970s – before it was deposited in the State Archives.

        There are no experts who have come forward with evidence the correction was made in another person’s handwriting or that the correction is an unauthorized falsification. It would certainly not be the first example of Ben Gurion creating a real fake historical document.

      • Bing Bong
        March 31, 2012, 6:52 am

        “It had been replaced with the text ‘We must expel Arabs and take their place’”

        No it’s not a replacement, it’s what is left after other words were crossed out. If BG was responsible for the crossing out it is totally incongruous with the rest of the paragraph.

        “That is not the way scholars handle redacted documents. You go ahead and quote the text verbatim and note the contents of any deleted material or questioned material in the footnotes.”

        Yes the scholars at JPS should do this with the original not translate a transcript that ignores the deletion.

        “Ben Gurion was publishing this letter in 1968 after he had retired from politics. He cherry-picked letters that made him look good or prescient.”

        Of which, this letter doesn’t if the deletion is included as supporting BG’s narrative. Either he cherry picked this letter as originally written before the deletion (which makes him look good) or he cherry picked this letter to include his (if indeed it was his) deletion (which makes him look bad and was the one originally published).

        “Experts agree that it already contained the correction when it was first deposited in the State Archives in the 1970s.”

        Which doesn’t mean it had to have been BG that made the deletion.

        As you quote yourself

        “The letter written by Ben Gurion to his son Amos dated October 5, 1937 is certainly the best known Israeli example of falsification of archives. There is ample consensus concerning this letter, and the experts all agree today that it was falsified between the time it was written and the end of the seventies when it was deposited in the archives of the State of Israel. The original document contains a rectification: a sentence and a half are scribbled over in ink. The editors involved in the publication of Ben Gurion’s letters noticed that the ink used to cross out the passage was different from the one used in the rest of the letter. Through modern techniques, the publishing house succeeded in restoring the original version by recovering the hidden words. In the damaged version Ben Gurion states very clearly that he is in favor of a transfer of the population, as stipulated in the recommendations of the Peel Commission Report of 1937, which recommended moving populations between the future Jewish and Arab states. Ben Gurion wrote to his son: “We must expel the Arabs and take their place…”. The original restored version states the exact opposite.”

        The falsification is “We must expel the Arabs”, namely if you include the deletion that changes the original which states the opposite.

        “Interestingly enough, Ben Gurion’s publishers used modern methods to recover the deleted text and decided to use that instead of the final archived handwritten version without alerting their readers to the substitution.”

        Yes they should have told their readers about their mistake, it’s hardly interesting that they were keen to gloss over their mistake of publishing the falsified and incongruous account. An account that nobody would really think was cherry picked or was revised into a ‘real fake historical document’ by BG to portray himself in a favourable light when it obviously does the exact opposite, namely; the falsified account says “we must expel the Arabs” whereas the original unfalsified account says “We must not expel the Arabs”

        What motivation would BG have for this? It’s also fruitful to ask what motivation others would have for falsifying the historical record outwith BG’s favour.

        “There are no experts who have come forward with evidence the correction was made in another person’s handwriting or that the correction is an unauthorized falsification.”

        There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that the damaged document is not due to BG including the incongruity, the unfavourable light it portrays BG in and radical nature of the ‘deletion’ that says the total opposite to the original. It isn’t even a correction in BG’s handwriting in that it isn’t rephrased, the meaning has changed only due to words being crossed out. Where is the expert evidence that says the crossing out (in different ink) was due to BG? Especially considering the document could have been changed at any point from 1937?

        It remains that the first English translation of a transcription of a damaged document is just that. It doesn’t confirm BG’s intended meaning either way as is claimed by JPS and the original poster above.

      • Hostage
        April 2, 2012, 1:09 am

        No it’s not a replacement, it’s what is left after other words were crossed out. If BG was responsible for the crossing out it is totally incongruous with the rest of the paragraph.

        Wrong! I’m quoting the text from a journal article that describes and quotes the exact contents of the redacted text as supplied by Ben Gurion’s publisher. Why don’t you try doing the same?

        Véronique Meimoun wrote:

        The original document contains a rectification: a sentence and a half are scribbled over in ink. The editors involved in the publication of Ben Gurion’s letters noticed that the ink used to cross out the passage was different from the one used in the rest of the letter.

        FYI, no one has supplied a scrap of evidence that the handwriting is not Ben Gurion’s or that the revision was made after the original was sent-off to young Amos, much less that the New Historians were fabricating history. If you are supposed to note pen and ink revisions, then you can toss-out the diary of Yosef Weitz, because it is full of well-known attempts at self-censorship that the publishers concealed for two decades.

        In fact, Morris credited Dr. Michael Heyman, former director of the Central Zionist Archives and other officials of the archive; Uri Elgom, director of the Israel Defense Forces Archive; and the archivists of the David Ben-Gurion Archive at Sdeh Boqer, the HaShomer Archive in Kfar Gil’adi, and the Ha Shomer Ha Tza’ir Archive in Giv’at Haviva for poining out and helping him locate the materials he used in “Falsifying the record: a fresh look at Zionist documentation of 1948, Journal of Palestine Studies, 1995 and a second, related, article pertaining to 1937 published in the Spring issue of Revue d’etudes Palestiniennes in 1994. link to palestine-studies.com

        Morris’ article revealed significant discrepancies between the contents of Yosef Weitz handwritten diaries and the version that Weitz published in 1965. The changes were intended to conceal original content about meetings and discussions regarding forced transfer and destruction of Arab villages and crops. In that case, researchers were not allowed access to the originals until the 1980s.

        What motivation would BG have for this? It’s also fruitful to ask what motivation others would have for falsifying the historical record outwith BG’s favour.

        Why not ask why Am Oved published so many other volumes of Ben Gurion’s handwritten “Memoirs” in the early 1970s that revealed he had spoken out, time and again, in favor of forced transfer of the Arab population during the period from 1936-38? Why should this lone letter published by Am Oved show that he was telling his 16 year old son baldfaced lies about his the position he routinely expressed on the subject during this period?

        The Protocols of the Executive of the Jewish Agency for Palestine produced by stenographers located in the Central Zionist Archives tell the same story. They revealed that Ben Gurion told his contemporaries that he was in favor of forced transfer and saw nothing unethical about it.

        It’s risible to suggest that on October 5 1937 Ben Gurion changed his mind for one day and told Amos that Zionists must not displace Arabs, and then turned around and set up a Committee for Transfer of Arabs a few weeks later in November of 1937 that spent the next seven months assembling information and statistical data, in order to work out a program for the forced transfer of 100,000 Arabs from a portion of Palestine.

        Am Oved publishing house participated in special committees comprised of its own editors, representatives of the Jewish Agency, Foreign Ministry, and other agencies that revised and extended the Memoirs of other Zionists. The subjects and their families didn’t always go along with the proposed changes. For example, Moshe Sharett’s son Yaakov Sharett revealed that he had published an unexpurgated version of his father’s diary over the objections of Am Oved’s special committee. The diary related that Ben Gurion had suppressed information about the Lavon Affair, Qibya massacre, and various schemes for conquest in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, & etc. link to palestine-studies.org

    • eGuard
      March 31, 2012, 9:09 am

      hophmi: I’m not clear on how this [IPS publication] is a response [to CAMERA] Indeed you are not.

      I am. The very first quote says: CAMERA asked JPS to “issue a correction”. Now they got an answer.

      Why read a second sentence from your comment?

  8. Les
    March 28, 2012, 6:11 pm

    “a Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end but the beginning” tells you all you need to know.

    • Woody Tanaka
      March 28, 2012, 6:27 pm

      Yup. Nakba from the inception. Planned and carried out by this devil.

    • dimadok
      March 28, 2012, 7:27 pm

      And what is that, exactly?

      • Dex
        March 28, 2012, 11:21 pm

        If you don’t know, then you are blind…or shall I say blinded by your fanatical allegiance to a racist ideology.

        I suggest you wash your eyes out, and re-read the quote.

      • Eva Smagacz
        March 29, 2012, 4:04 am

        dimadok,

        Total short term memory loss. Usually irreversible. I pity your carers.

        Alternatively, you are trolling.

  9. Annie Robbins
    March 29, 2012, 12:23 am

    finally working my way thru all the text starting with the first link. it’s never redundant to remind ourselves of what we already know and have studied when the topic and people grip our being/our souls.

    i am interrupting my read to insert this particular paragraph of pappe’s i find compelling.

    Yet when it comes to the dispossession by Israel of the Palestinians in 1948, there is a deep chasm between the reality and the representation. This is most bewildering, and it is difficult to understand how events perpetrated in modern times and witnessed by foreign reporters and UN observers could be systemat- ically denied, not even recognized as historical fact, let alone acknowledged as a crime that needs to be confronted, politically as well as morally. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that the ethnic cleansing of 1948, the most formative event in the modern history of the land of Palestine, has been almost entirely eradicated from the collective global memory and erased from the world’s conscience.

    pg 8

    • Bing Bong
      April 1, 2012, 1:37 pm

      “it’s never redundant to remind ourselves of what we already know and have studied”

      It is actually far more than redundant if what you already know (specifically the translated transcription retaining the deletion) was wrong to begin with.

      • Hostage
        April 2, 2012, 3:31 am

        It is actually far more than redundant if what you already know (specifically the translated transcription retaining the deletion) was wrong to begin with.

        There’s unimpeachable evidence that Ben Gurion and the Jewish Agency Executive were in favor of compulsory transfer of the Arab population as part of their idea of establishing a Jewish state in all of Palestine or as part of a partition. Within weeks of this letter they established a Committee for Transfer of Arabs which developed its own plan for compulsory transfer. Ben Gurion stated that he was in favor of forced transfer and that there was nothing unethical about it. That evidence is contained in the diaries of Ben Gurion that were published by Am Oved – the same publisher who printed Letters to Paula and the children – including this particular letter to Amos. See the diary for 1937 pages 296,297-9, & 331; and the diary for 1938 pages 214-5 (cited and quoted in Yossi Katz, Partners to Partition, 1998.

        That evidence is also backed-up by the verbatim minutes stenographers recorded during the Jewish Agency Executive meetings that were held before and after this letter to Amos was written. Protocols of the Executive of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, Central Zionist Archive, Jerusalem, volume 25/3, no.65a, 10 July 1936, page 3; and volume 28, no.53, 12 June 1938, afternoon session, pages 8-9

        The thesis that Efraim Karsh published in his “Fabricating History” book simply claimed that Ben Gurion corrected the text by mistake, but Karsh did not provide any proof to support that conclusion.

        So the bottom line is, that you haven’t supplied any reliable published source, let alone CAMERA, which could possibly establish that the letter doesn’t say exactly what the original author intended to say all along.

  10. Bing Bong
    April 1, 2012, 4:41 am

    “This is all about scoring points”

    Yes, by the JPS over CAMERA. I think that they honestly believe they have translated the original handwritten letter instead of the typed Hebrew transcript that replicates the defaced original.

    The fanfare about this being an exclusive 1st time publication of a translation into English makes me think this. It isn’t the first translation of the transcription into English, this has been readily available for years.

    “led JPS to have the original source — Ben-Gurion’s 5 October 1937 letter to his son — translated into English.”

    It’s not the original source.

    “the full English translation of Ben-Gurion’s letter (to our knowledge never published before)”

    The transcript they translated has been published before

    link to palestine-studies.org

    I think they have been so preoccupied with scoring political points they have rushed to translate the document that supports their viewpoint (and was already available as a translation anyway) and not the handwritten original as they claim.

    In responding to CAMERA’s claims so sloppily, the Journal of Palestine Studies have gone to a lot of trouble obtaining the material from the archive and employing their translator, only to end up supporting the criticisms of poor scholarly standards that CAMERA initially voiced. It would be proper for the Journal of Palestine Studies to retract their claim (or study the handwritten original) before others unquestioningly use it to erroneously “score points”

    • Hostage
      April 2, 2012, 1:58 am

      I think that they honestly believe they have translated the original handwritten letter instead of the typed Hebrew transcript that replicates the defaced original.

      The visible text is identical in any case and the JPS has published Efraim Karsh’s published thesis, from page 50 of his book Fabricating History, in which Karsh himself claimed that Ben Gurion did all of this so-called “damage” completely by accident. Here is an excerpt from the book review by Morris:

      Karsh is also correct (p 46-51) in asserting that Birth had quoted (with due reference) a passage of a 1937 letter by David Ben-Gurion to his son, Amos Ben-Gurion, from Shabtai Teveth‘s Ben-Guion and the Palestinian Arabs.- From Peace to War (Karsh misnames the work on p. 47, footnote 16) rather than going to the original manuscript. Had I gone to the original, I would have noticed that the quotation is problematic, as three lines had been crossed out (by Ben-Gurion or someone else, subsequently), vitally changing the meaning of the passage. The text (with the lines crossed out) reads: “We must expel Arabs and take their place . . .” (which is how Teveth quoted the passage). But if the crossed-out lines are deciphered and reintroduced, then Ben-Gurion‘s stance becomes equivocal, rendering the passage: “And then we will have to use force . . . without hesitation though only when we have no choice. We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their place. . . .”

      It is unclear who crossed out the lines – Ben-Gurion almost never crossed out or changed anything he had written; his voluminous, handwritten diaries are astonishing for their lack of erasures and emendations – and what had been Ben-Gurion’s real intention. But in the final analysis what we have today is the letter (with the crossed out lines) reading: “We must expel the Arabs and take their place. . . .” Karsh (p. 50) indulges in elaborate acrobatics in order to “clear” Ben-Gurion and explain this away:

      The sentence . . . appears to result from hasty handwriting, not political intention. In the process of writing the letter, Ben-Gurion apparently realized he had repeated himself on the question of the use of force; or he decided to rephrase this sentence. In any case, he crossed out the [three lines] . . . In so doing, most probably due to an abrupt brush of the pen; he erased the critical words “do not” . . . leaving the sentence as “we need” [or must] rather than “we do not need” . . . As a result, a momentary, fleeting typographical oversíght has become a pointed weapon in the hands of future detractors, though only if this sentence is taken out of context. _ , .3

      Shakespeare could have been thinking of Karsh when he wrote: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

      link to palestine-studies.org

    • Hostage
      April 2, 2012, 2:54 am

      In responding to CAMERA’s claims so sloppily, the Journal of Palestine Studies have gone to a lot of trouble obtaining the material from the archive and employing their translator, only to end up supporting the criticisms of poor scholarly standards that CAMERA initially voiced.

      The Journal illustrated that Pappe had fairly summarized the contents of the letter and an official transcript supplied by the archive itself. The journal had already published a review of Prof. Karsh’s book in which he claimed Ben Gurion had mistakenly crossed-out the text and left the reader with the wrong impression. They had also published articles on deliberate discrepancies between the hand written originals of Yosef Weitz diary and the published versions. The sloppy alterations to the originals appeared to have been intended to conceal for a time, the discussions about compulsory transfer and actual ethnic cleansing operations. The JPS had also published articles which explained that Am Oved participated in a special review committee that objected to the publication of an unexpurgated edition of Moshe Sharret’s personal diary. So we know that in some cases the Zionists redacted the original texts or attempted to revise them prior to publication.

      For example, in the memoirs published after Berl Katznelson’s death, the author dismissed charges that he or Ben Gurion had ever renounced their support for compulsory transfer. He falsely claimed that they had never raised the subject in the first place. See Berl Katznelson, Writings, vol.5, Tel-Aviv: Davar, 1947, page 112.

      Howard Grief cited and quoted an article Katznelson wrote in 1937 supporting compulsory transfer, while attending the 20th Zionist Congress. He called it “the best of solutions”, which he said “must come about some day”. link to books.google.com

      Here is Ben Gurion’s diary entry written a few months before the letter to Amos:

      In my notes on the report immediately after a first reading, I ignored a central point whose importance surpasses all the other positive elements and outweighs all the deficiencies and faults in the report… and if it will not remain a dead letter it can give us something which we never ever had even when we were independent, even during the First Temple and the Second Commonwealth: forced transfer [emphasis in the original] of Arabs from the valleys which are offered to the Jewish State. I ignored this fundamental point out of prejudice [emphasis in the original] that this thing was simply impossible and these were only mere words. However, when I perused the Commission’s findings a bit further, and the gigantic importance of this proposal became clear, I arrived at the conclusion that the primary obstacle to the implementation of this proposal is our lack of preparedness and our being captives of opinions and modes of thought that flourished in our midst under other circumstances and we must first of all liberate ourselves from flaccid thinking and the prejudice that this transfer would not be possible. I see, as previously, the tremendous difficulty of uprooting by a foreign force 100,000 Arabs from the villages in which they resided for hundreds of years. Will England [sic] dare to do it? She will definitely not do it if we don’t want it and if we don’t push her to it … But if because of our flaccidness … nothing will be done, we are going by our own fault to forfeit a chance that we never had and who knows if it will ever recur. And before we ask ourselves will Britain do it, we must uproot from our own hearts … the assumption that this is impossible. It is altogether possible … and we are not those who proposed it. The Royal Commission which the British Government has confided in … it was the Commission which imposed the matter on the British Government and we must take hold of this conclusion as we clung to the Balfour Declaration, further just as we clung to Zionism itself… with our full force, will and faith that of all the Commission’s findings this is the one thing that represents compensation for the severance of other parts of the country and offers a large measure of raison d’etre from an Arab standpoint [emphasis in the original]. For Trans-Jordan needs settlements and increased population, development and money and the British government, the wealthiest of all governments, is summoned by its own Royal Commission to supply the necessary money, and in the implementation of this transfer there is a great latent blessing to the Arab State whereas for us, it is a question of life, existence, security, culture, increased freedom and independence … The transfer clause in my opinion is more important than all our demands for increased territory. This is the greatest and most important and most vital territorial increment. If we do not succeed in ejecting the Arabs from our midst and transfer them to an Arab area, when a British Royal Commission proposes this to England [sic], we will not so easily succeed in doing so (if we are to succeed at all) after the state has arise … this has to be done Now and the first step and perhaps the decisive one is to prepare ourselves for implementing it . ..” — David Ben-Gurion, Handwritten Diary entry 12 July 1937, (Ben Gurion Archives) published in D. Ben Gurion “Memoirs” Volume 4, Am Oved, Tel Aviv, 1974, pages 297-299 cited and quoted in Yosef Kats, Partner to partition: the Jewish Agency’s partition plan in the mandate era, Psychology Press, Apr 30, 1998

      link to books.google.com

      On 12 June 1938, Ben Gurion told the other members of the Jewish Agency Executive “I favour compulsory transfer” and “I see nothing unethical in it.” See Protocols of the Executive of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, Jerusalem, vol.28, no.53, 12 June 1938, afternoon session, pages 8-9 (Central Zionist Archives).

      During his address to the 2oth Zionist Congress in August of 1937 Ben Gurion expressly stated that no Jewish leader could cede any of the territory of Eretz Israel on either side of the Jordan river to the Arabs. Here is how one Zionist historian summed it up:

      As a historian of Zionism, Gideon, you must know Ben-Gurion’s words in the 20th Zionist Congress in 1937 (this time in Zurich not in Basel): ‘If I had been faced with the question: a Jewish state in the west of the land of Israel (note the emphasis of the ‘west of the land of Israel’ meaning there is also a ‘east of the land of Israel’) in return to giving up on our historical right to the entire land of Israel I would have postponed the (establishment) of the state’. And he added (as far as I know, to applause from many of the delegates): ‘No Jew is entitled to give up the right of the Jewish nation to the land. It is not in the authority of any Jew or of any Jewish body; it is not even in the authority of the entire nation alive today to give up any part of the land’. This sentence has won great attention also in the St. James committee. He concluded by stating the view of the majority (then) in the Zionist movement: ‘this is a standing right under all conditions. Even if, at any point, the Jews choose to decline it, they have no right to deprive future generations of it. Our right to the entire land exists and stands for ever’. In view of the things that are being said today, it is hard to avoid the gloomy realisation that, sixty years after Ben-Gurion announced Israeli independence, the current Israeli president, Prime Minister and not a small coalition of Knesset Members seem willing to relinquish this historic claim. If nothing else, they have no right to do so because this land belongs to those who have left us, and those who are yet to come. Without them, it is impossible to make a decision.

      link to jewishquarterly.org

      • Mooser
        April 14, 2012, 1:41 pm

        If I’m ever kidnapped, and held hostage, I know who I’d like to have negotiating my release.

  11. talknic
    April 2, 2012, 8:17 am

    What was said prior to the International recognition of Israeli independence and its subsequent admission to the UN, is irrelevant to today and the actual legal status of Israel’s Sovereign extent from which flow all the UNSC resolutions against Israel’s illegal activities since becoming an Independent Sovereign State

    That said, Israel’s illegal activities bear witness to the intentions of the Zionist Federation, a small band of influential people who were not even from the region and who were not elected by the world’s Jewish population who they claimed to represent.

    Were the US to have dropped the veto vote in the UNSC, the I/P problem could have been resolved according to the law years ago, (the Arab States have actually based their objections in law, the LoN and the UN Charter)

    Under the protection of the US veto vote, Israel has mis represented and ignored the law, the UN Charter, in fact anything that gets in the way of its insane addiction to the notion of a Greater Israel which has now become a multi billion dollar industry with huge far reaching contracts no one wants to lose.

    Without the US veto vote and under the law, Israel would exist within its boundaries, protected by the law and the UN Charter and there’d very likely have been a Palestinian State circa 1950.

    By attempting to assert its influence in the region thru support of Israel after the British signaled its withdrawal from the region, the US has created an abusive, ghastly little monster it is afraid of even attempting to control.

  12. Bing Bong
    April 2, 2012, 8:14 pm

    “Wrong! I’m quoting the text from a journal article that describes and quotes the exact contents of the redacted text as supplied by Ben Gurion’s publisher. Why don’t you try doing the same?”

    Where does it say text was added? It was taken away, this is what changed the meaning of the original not a rephrasing by BG or whoever.

    “FYI, no one has supplied a scrap of evidence that the handwriting is not Ben Gurion’s”

    A scribble isn’t handwriting. (?!)

    “If you are supposed to note pen and ink revisions…”

    You are noting a pen and ink revision, the deletion that makes the paragraph nonsense. You are actually ignoring the original text that makes sense of the paragraph.

    “So we know that in some cases the Zionists redacted the original texts or attempted to revise them prior to publication.”

    And you are picking and choosing which ones to defend as worthy of reinterpretation post publication. Bert Katznelson’s can be reinterpreted if it serves your cause, BG’s cannot, when the reinterpretation of what was originally published settles on “We must not expel the Arabs”. I say you cannot have it both ways.

    “It’s risible to suggest that on October 5 1937 Ben Gurion changed his mind for one day and told Amos that Zionists must not displace Arabs”

    Even more ridiculous to suggest he changed his mind again one sentence further along and within the same paragraph from where you claim he said “we must expel the Arabs” to “all our aspiration is built on the assumption – proven throughout all our activity – that there is enough room for ourselves and the Arabs in Palestine.” Perhaps he forgot to scribble over the latter with another pen at some point since 1937?

    It is indeed risible to think he changed his mind for a day, because he indeed did not change his mind for a day when he wrote ‘We must not expel’ and ‘there is enough room for ourselves and the Arabs in Palestine’

    I understand you are trying to provide a context for the letter within interpretations of wider events that you agree with, but perhaps there are also other examples of Ben Gurion saying or writing words at other times and perhaps other events to provide a differing context to yours?

    Rather than widen the debate to encompass whatever historical event (and accompanying anti-Zionist interpretation) you decide is relevant, why can’t you or JPS explain how incongruous the defaced original is within the paragraph within the letter? It may make sense to you when extrapolated into your anti-Zionist interpretation of wider events, but within the paragraph it does not.

    And that is the target the JPS are trying to hit to make up for Pappe’s wrong citation with their ‘new’ translation, that is also the specific area addressed in the title of the original post above, “We must expel the Arabs”. This is because the wording this mistranslation provides that includes the incongruous deletion is one of the most widely known, most popular, most pointed and most cited bits of ‘evidence’ against BG. Look to any common number of ‘true facts about Palestine’ sites, any number of armchair anti-Zionists and you’ll get that misquote.

    The JPS have not done as they say, and indeed you repeated their mistake with your own OCR’d translation under the impression that this was the ‘original’. At no point is the incongruity of, or the deletion itself questioned/interpreted/explained by JPS in their response to CAMERA’s claim that the handwritten original has that pertinent part of the text crossed out. This, I believe, is because they mistakenly think they have translated (for the first time…..they think) the original letter. Hophmi has also commented in this thread about how this isn’t actually a response [at least to that part] of CAMERA’s account that iterates the deletion being present.

    JPS even claim that the context of the quote (namely within the letter and within the paragraph) is important.

    “Yet in order to properly understand the allegedly “fake” Ben-Gurion quote, it must be seen in the context in which it occurs. In the interests of optimal accuracy, therefore, JPS asked the Hebrew Department of the Institute for Palestine Studies (IPS) in Beirut to translate the full text of the letter from the original Hebrew, which was obtained from the Ben-Gurion Archives Online”

    But they did not do this. Including the deletion actually makes ‘proper understanding’ far more difficult because it then doesn’t make sense.

    You have questioned the deletion citing a Benny Morris critique that claims Karsh employs ‘acrobatics’ to clear BG’s name. I would say that Karsh’s is certainly the more likely interpretation, especially since Morris’ interpretation consists only of withdrawing the quote and stating BG’s intention is ‘unclear’ when confronted with his mistake. In my opinion the acrobatics have to occur when trying to uphold the deletion, namely dragging in any number of citations from a wider anti-Zionist narrative context and oversimplifications that ignore wider events and contexts (and indeed the immediate context of the letter) that you may not agree with. Oversimplifications like “It’s risible….Ben Gurion changed his mind for one day and told Amos that Zionists must not displace Arabs”

    If the JPS want to supply their own interpretation of the original handwritten Hebrew letter and its context including the text before the deletion instead of completely failing to address the deletion and the problems it throws up because they have used a transcript instead, then I’m sure we will all get a certain amount of pleasure from reading it.

    Here’s the bottom line. Yes or no, have the JPS provided for the first time a translation like they claim?

    And is it of the original primary source, namely the Hebrew original of BG’s letter like they claim?

    ( If you want to continue arguing the wider context gambit to impart meaning onto the specifics of BG’s letter I can but refer you to Karsh in the first instance link to meforum.org and as CAMERA, JPS and yourself cite him, Morris in the second

    “I also believe that the emergent Jewish state, in 1947-1948, having been assaulted by the Palestinian Arab militias and, subsequently, by the armies of the Arab states, had no choice, as a matter of self-defense and survival, but to attack the villages and towns that served as the bases of their militias. And before and during these attacks, most of the inhabitants fled; some were expelled; others were ordered or advised by their own leaders to flee.….”

    link to americanthinker.com

    …and suggest you take up the arguments with others more willing.)

    Shalom.

    • Hostage
      April 3, 2012, 5:41 pm

      It is indeed risible to think he changed his mind for a day, because he indeed did not change his mind for a day when he wrote ‘We must not expel’ and ‘there is enough room for ourselves and the Arabs in Palestine’

      Bing Bong you and your tag team partners are dissembling and engaging in pilpul about “damage” or mistranslation of the original letter without supplying any proof that it’s actually been damaged or mistranslated. We all know that Israel felt it was perfectly entitled to displace tens of thousands of Arabs from villages and lands that were capable of supporting a population in the Latrun salient in order to assert Jewish sovereignty and establish an empty space for a park, i.e. Canada Park.

      In the letter to Amos, Ben Gurion said that the Zionists wouldn’t tolerate a similar decision by the Arabs to retain empty spaces like that in the new Arab state created under the Peel Commission proposal. He had just finished explaining that a superior army was being built-up that would allow Jews to settle in all of Eretz Israel – with or without the consent of the Arabs. So either version of the sentence in question would have constituted a grave violation of the territorial integrity and political independence of another state and a violation of international law.

      FYI, CAMERA presented a sloppy claim, based upon remarks made by Benny Morris. But they left out Morris’ conclusions that: “The first part of the quote (‘I support compulsory transfer’) is genuine;” and “It is true that Ben-Gurion in 1937-38 supported the transfer of the Arabs out of the area of the Jewish state-to-be – which was precisely the recommendation of the British Royal (Peel) Commission from July 1937, which investigated the Palestine problem.” link to tomgrossmedia.com

      So Ben Gurion had no ethical objection to removing the Arabs by force and supported a plan to do exactly that in order to set-up a strictly Jewish state. He assured Amos that Jews would use their army to settle in those other areas of Eretz Israel that migh be allocated to the Arabs displaced under the Peel plan for partition.

      The paragraph in question is a discussion about invading and settling a neighboring foreign state. Ben Gurion based his remarks in that paragraph on the correct assumption that the Peel plan would allocate the Negev to the Arab State. The Palestinian government would then be perfectly entitled to decide how to use the land and its resources, and to prohibit Jewish immigration and settlement. He makes the remarkable claim that, despite the partition into separate states, the Zionists would no longer tolerate the existence of empty spaces in the newly created Arab state:

      “Let us assume that the Negev will not be allotted to the Jewish state. . . . We want neither your honey nor your sting. We’d rather that the Negev remain barren than that Jews should inhabit it.” If this occurs, we will have to talk to them in a different language—and we will have a different language—but such a language will not be ours without a state. This is so because we can no longer tolerate that vast territories capable of absorbing tens of thousands of Jews should remain vacant, and that Jews cannot return to their homeland because the Arabs prefer that the place [the Negev] remains neither ours nor theirs.”

      Am Oved publishing house and Ben Gurion prepared these memoirs, the manuscripts, and the licensed derivative works. His diaries say that, in July of 1937, he had told the others on the Jewish Agency Executive that we have to take hold of the proposal for “forced transfer” of the Arab population and cling to it just like the Balfour Declaration and Zionism itself … “with our full force, will and faith.”

      You are being disingenuous when you suggest that I’m giving an anti-Zionist interpretation of those remarks, or that they have no connection to this discussion, or the subsequent historical events. I’ve actually supplied you with a rather long verbatim quote from his diary, written a few weeks before he wrote the letter to Amos. Prof Yossi Katz devoted an entire chapter (pages 85-109 in Partner to Partition) to the presentation of the rather ample archival evidence which illustrates the Jewish Agency’s efforts to formulate their own plan for transferring the Arab population out of the Jewish state. That was an integral part of the Agency’s Mandate era partition proposal, which was developed by a staff of over three hundred people. Ben Gurion fully supported the efforts to establish the Committee on Arab Population Transfer as part of that overall effort (which was well underway at the time he wrote the letter to Amos).

      I pointed out in one of my comments above that Ben Gurion held the copyright to both the original 1937 letter and the sanitized manuscripts that he prepared and published after 1968. The Ben Gurion Archive holdings include the manuscript prepared for Valentine in 1971, when they published “Letters to Paula and the Children” in Great Britain. That English version of the whole letter to Amos agrees with the one done by JPS in all of its particular except one. It contains a single, rather significant lacuna – this particular sentence about displacing or not displacing the Arabs is completely missing – and no ellipsis were supplied to indicate that Ben Gurion or Valentine’s had intentionally omitted part of the original text. All of this occurred long before the originals were ever deposited in the archive. So you have to be pretty brassy to accuse others of sloppiness when they faithfully summarize and quote the transcripts prepared by Ben Gurion and his publishers, or the professional staff of the archive in Sde Boker.

  13. Bing Bong
    April 4, 2012, 4:57 pm

    I don’t have a tag team partner, I have a partner who translated the transcribed letter, I haven’t discussed much more of this thread with her beyond what I had written myself. She did ask where does this guy (Adam Horowitz) think he is going to go the next time they come for us?

    I’m flattered that what I’ve written is being attributed to a team, I am just one person, albeit the only person here to have picked up on JPS’s mistake.

    As for proof of the damaged document I refer you to Morris. I indeed have not seen it personally but I would suggest Morris’ career is over if the JPS are correct in their claim to have translated the original Hebrew document (theirs being typed) which Morris ‘falsely’ claims is handwritten and damaged and occluding BG’s original text.

    “You are being disingenuous when you suggest that I’m giving an anti-Zionist interpretation of those remarks”

    I’m sure you believe your interpretation is correct but that is exactly what you are doing, instead of answering these simple questions that are pertinent to the thread…

    Yes or no, have the JPS provided for the first time a translation like they claim?

    And is it of the original primary source, namely the Hebrew original of BG’s letter like they claim?

    …you are trying to pull in everything you can to ‘prove’ that Zionism’s specific overall intent was to ethnically cleanse the Arabs of Palestine and BG’s letter is another document proving that ‘fact’ when clearly to anyone without an anti-Zionist agenda this letter doesn’t. If you can answer these questions and explain how in any way the paragraph maintains any sort of integrity with the deletion included then you would have answered my initial points about the original blog post. The very fact you travelled around the houses so much to avoid doing so also strongly points to an anti-Zionist agenda.

    Of course context is important, trying to stamp, shoehorn and spray paint an anti-Zionist context all over one specific document that specifically and unequivocally goes against that context while also ignoring any context behind transfers as per the Morris quote I pointed to in my last post is just pure bluster. It’s like shouting at a rock while ignoring others telling you it can’t hear you.

    And if you want context you can have 2000 years of persecution and 6 million dead in the Holocaust. If you want context you can address how much of Palestine would the Arabs have tolerated as being the state of Israel considering they rejected partition and just how aware BG would have been of this possibility. Total intransigence as a context for transfer? No?

    “The paragraph in question is a discussion about invading and settling a neighbouring foreign state. Ben Gurion based his remarks in that paragraph on the correct assumption that the Peel plan would allocate the Negev to the Arab State. The Palestinian government would then be perfectly entitled to decide how to use the land and its resources, and to prohibit Jewish immigration and settlement. He makes the remarkable claim that, despite the partition into separate states, the Zionists would no longer tolerate the existence of empty spaces in the newly created Arab state:”

    Where is the context here that is anything but anti-Zionist? Are we to assume that the Peel Commission’s partition was in any way fair to the Zionist aspiration? Borders defensible by the Jewish military against the inevitable Arab attack? Was it acceptable to BG even though it was agreed to by the Jews in order to get a state rather than risk having none? Again, see Morris.

    “They endorsed the idea, proposed by the British government’s Peel Commission in 1937 and by Britain’s Labour Party until 1945, in order to provide a safe haven for Europe’s persecuted Jews and against the backdrop of an Arab Revolt in Palestine whose aim was to oust British rule and end the Zionist enterprise or at least to force the British to close Palestine’s gates to Europe’s persecuted Jews. The Jews of Europe, as we know, and as many Zionists sensed, were facing mass annihilation and had nowhere else to flee to.”

    You should look at what the Arabs were prepared to tolerate the existence of in 1948 (as well as 1937), if you want to make an issue of “violation of the territorial integrity and political independence of another state and a violation of international law.” But I’m guessing that is all explained away by ‘your context’ too which doesn’t make this a remarkable violation of the territorial integrity and political independence of another state and a violation of international law.

    Without a very large debate about context, (and you have already drawn me in further than I wanted) all we have is ‘your context’. And your context doesn’t explain away everything because it isn’t the full story you believe it to be.

    Now try addressing the ‘bottom line’ questions if you can. They are relevant to what I originally posted and indeed what the original blog post is about. No historical context is going to explain why the paragraph is nonsense with the deletion included any more than you are going to explain the deletion without resorting to your biased anti-Zionist context, or cynical “…..Ben Gurion changed his mind for a day” flippancy, it seems.

    Anti-Zionists aren’t going to abandon the quote as they prefer it, the JPS trying to justify it doesn’t add up though. One sided context doesn’t either. Address what we are left with, namely ‘the bottom line’ as I put it.

    Here’s some context, anti-Zionists love using the popular sound bite “We must expel the Arabs”, go figure where that leaves them if the quote is wrong and actually says “We must not expel the Arabs” and what are they going to do about it?

    I can’t really comment further until you’ve addressed these points that do pertain to this thread and the issue of the JPS’s response to CAMERA however.

    • Hostage
      April 4, 2012, 11:36 pm

      I’m flattered that what I’ve written is being attributed to a team

      No, I’m referring to the others commenting on this article with idle speculation, disinformation, & etc., like Fredblogs and Hophmi. You even took-up one of Hophmi’s arguments in one of your posts.

      I would suggest Morris’ career is over if the JPS are correct in their claim to have translated the original Hebrew document (theirs being typed) which Morris ‘falsely’ claims is handwritten and damaged and occluding BG’s original text.

      LOL! Morris is already irrelevant. The only question the University wanted answered was whether or not Pappe had documentary evidence, like Shabetai Teveth’s book, this transcript, or one of Ben Gurion’s manuscripts that supports the quote: ‘We must expel the Arabs and take their place.’ Exeter University considers the matter closed.

      Notwithstanding your sloppy logic, the standard of scholarship and academic practice requires us to distinguish between mistranslation, falsified documents, and self-censorship. In either case it would require the University to consider Ben Gurion’s many other statements on forced transfer and dismiss false and unethical claims, like the ones lodged by CAMERA, that Shabetai Teveth and other researchers were using a “mistranslation”. In fact everyone admits the original was altered to read “We must expel the Arabs and take their place”.

      Where is the context here that is anything but anti-Zionist? Are we to assume that the Peel Commission’s partition was in any way fair to the Zionist aspiration? Borders defensible by the Jewish military against the inevitable Arab attack? Was it acceptable to BG even though it was agreed to by the Jews in order to get a state rather than risk having none? Again, see Morris.

      Again see Morris’ letter to the Editor that CAMERA cited. He said the first part of Pappe’s quote – which said the Arabs must go – was authentic. Exeter University explained that the second part of the sentence was a summary that wasn’t inside the quotation marks in Pappe’s original and that it would be corrected in future editions. End of story.

      Moving on, we are discussing the unchallenged contents of Ben Gurion’s letter, and the fact that whichever version of the sentence you choose to employ, he was unequivocally talking about using superior military force to prevent the Arabs from prohibiting Jewish settlement in the territory of their own state after the partition had occurred. That’s both immoral and a grave violation of international law. Anti-Zionism and the opinion of Benny Morris aren’t even factors that need to be considered in a sane analysis of that situation.

      The bottom line is that PhDs are perfectly capable of forming their own opinions as to whether or not the original letter has been damaged, corrected, self-censored, & etc. without any help from CAMERA.

    • Woody Tanaka
      April 5, 2012, 11:42 am

      “She did ask where does this guy (Adam Horowitz) think he is going to go the next time they come for us?”

      Who is this stupid person and why do you not laugh at her?

    • Mooser
      April 14, 2012, 1:44 pm

      “She did ask where does this guy (Adam Horowitz) think he is going to go the next time they come for us?”

      Adam has a standing invitation to come stay at my place, where he’ll be perfectly safe. It’s only fair to warn him, tho, we eat a lot of pork and shellfish.
      And if they come for us here, I’ll let my wife answer the door, and my new doggie will scare them away.

  14. Bing Bong
    April 5, 2012, 4:22 am

    I’ve been interested in this for a while now rather than deciding to take up someone else’s argument, I’ve even going so far as to initiate an FOI request from Exeter and got a reply dated 15 March.

    “This matter was fully investigated by the College of Social Sciences and International studies Ethics Committee and then referred to the College Dean and the Chair and Secretary of the University of Exeter’s Ethics Committee, however there are no formal minutes recording the University ethics committee’s conclusions.

    The University does hold some information related to the investigation. However, information relating to investigations carried out by the University into matters relating to its staff amounts to personal data of the member of staff. We consider that the exemption under section 40(3)(a)(i) of the Freedom of Information Act applies.”

    My initial argument remains my main argument and is far from idle speculation however.

    And it is one you cannot answer

    Yes or no, have the JPS provided for the first time a translation like they claim?

    And is it of the original primary source, namely the Hebrew original of BG’s letter like they claim?

    • Hostage
      April 5, 2012, 11:26 am

      My initial argument remains my main argument and is far from idle speculation however. . . . And it is one you cannot answer

      I’ve answered it several times. The version published in 1968 was sub-licensed and most of the letter was published in English in 1971 by Valentine in the UK. That edition was sub-licensed for publication by the University of Pittsburgh Press here in the US. The US edition didn’t contain any of the possible renderings of this particular sentence. No ellipses were employed to indicate that text from the original letter had been intentionally omitted. CAMERA noted that Shabetai Teveth published the sentence: ‘We must expel Arabs and take their place’ in 1984. But Teveth only quoted an extract from the text of the letter.

      So yes, the JPS was not exaggerating when it said: “Interestingly, however, the letter appears never to have been published in full in English.”

    • Hostage
      April 5, 2012, 11:27 am

      And is it of the original primary source, namely the Hebrew original of BG’s letter like they claim?

      LOL! I’m calling bullshit on that. You act like the JPS website is peer reviewed, instead of the journal articles that they publish. JPS was responding to what CAMERA had actually written about an “invented” or “fabricated” quote, not what you now wish that CAMERA had come forward and said about sources. No one expected the Ben Gurion Archive to mail-off the original letter to the capital of an enemy state and nothing JPS said about getting the original source — Ben-Gurion’s 5 October 1937 letter to his son — translated into English prevents them from 1) obtaining an official transcript of the original Hebrew text from the Archive; and b) having their staff in Beirut translate the full text of the letter from the original Hebrew language into English:

      In the links below, readers will find JPS’s official response to CAMERA (published in the winter 2012 issue), the full English translation of Ben-Gurion’s letter (to our knowledge never published before), the original Hebrew (from the Ben-Gurion Archives), and a link to Pappé’s article.

      CAMERA wrote an entire article shreying about the use of so-called “mistranslations”. It never once mentioned any “damage” to the text of the original. CAMERA studiously avoided mentioning the fact that Karsh himself claimed that Ben Gurion accidentally altered the text of the original Hebrew letter and verified that it now reads “We must expel Arabs and take their place”. That tidbit of information alone would have exploded the CAMERA myth about “mistranslations”.

      FYI, the Morris’ and Karsh’s articles that CAMERA cited constitute documentary evidence for the quotations used by Pappé and the text contained in the transcript provided by the Ben Gurion Archives. Morris doesn’t mention any “mistranslation” and verifies that the letter now reads “We must expel Arabs and take their place”. CAMERA actually concealed the fact that Morris himself wrote a letter to the Editor which admitted that the first part of Pappe’s quote (“The Arabs must go…”) is authentic. CAMERA incorrectly asserted that the words “based upon” in Exeter’s response can only mean that Pappé’s translation is a paraphrase that should not appear inside quotes. Even a metaphrase or literal translation from Hebrew to English would have to be “based upon” a source document.

      • Bing Bong
        April 5, 2012, 11:37 am

        “Interestingly, however, the letter appears never to have been published in full in English.”

        It still isn’t, I rest my case.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 5, 2012, 12:41 pm

        I rest my case

        finally! what a bogus bunch of hot air.

      • Hostage
        April 5, 2012, 2:01 pm

        finally! what a bogus bunch of hot air.

        LOL! Yes we’ve finally moved-on from the claim that “Pappé invented or fabricated the quote”, to the not so subtle claim that the copyright holder; his agents; licensees; and archivists are still distributing copies of the invented or fabricated quote. For some evil reason they have chosen not to publish the full text of the letter + errata in any of the English or Hebrew editions.

        Bing-Bong is trying to impeach Ben Gurion’s draft manuscript of Letters to Paula and the Children:
        7. Ben-Gurion’s Manuscripts and Drafts
        Contains mainly typewritten drafts and a few manuscripts of Ben-Gurion’s books and articles, i.e. memoirs, notes, letters to Paula and his children, etc. (30 boxes)
        link to bgu-archives.migvan.co.il

      • Annie Robbins
        April 5, 2012, 2:08 pm

        thanks so much for all the clarity hostage.

  15. Bing Bong
    April 10, 2012, 11:55 am

    CAMERA, like me, seem to have picked up on the error that this letter is not the Hebrew original. They are even claiming that JPS have mistranslated the Hebrew transcription now toward a pro-expulsion bias.

    “But here, JPS’s translation of the transcription (which it offers as the “Hebrew original”) conveniently falters. The journal’s translators inserted the phrase “up to now” at the start the sentence beginning with “All of our ambitions.” But such a phrase does not exist — not in the actual original letter and not in JPS’s transcription of the original. It is hard to imagine how this mistranslation could have been an innocent mistake.

    The Hebrew Department of the Institute for Palestine Studies also tweaks the subsequent sentence, changing the opening word from “and” to “but.” To be fair, the IPS’s Hebrew Department is not the only translator who have made this latter adjustment. But taken together, this major and minor change helps “fix” the problem of the incompatible context.

    Just to get a sense of how important the inserted words are to JPS’s efforts to vindicate Pappé’s scholarship, here is how the three sentences in question read as they appear in JPS’s Hebrew transcription:

    We must expel Arabs and take their place. All of our ambitions are built on the assumption that has proven true throughout all of our activities in the land — that there is enough room for us and for the Arabs in the land [of Israel]. And if we will have to use force, not for the sake of evicting the Arabs of the Negev or Transjordan, but rather in order to secure the right that belongs to us to settle there, force will be available to us.

    Here is how the two sentences read with the words inserted by IPS’s translators:

    We must expel Arabs and take their place. Up to now all of our ambitions are built on the assumption that has proven true throughout all of our activities in the land — that there is enough room for us and for the Arabs in the land [of Israel]. But if we will have to use force, not for the sake of evicting the Arabs of the Negev or Transjordan, but rather in order to secure the right that belongs to us to settle there, force will be available to us.

    Without the words invented and inserted by JPS’s Hebrew department, the last two sentences contradict the first. With the invented words, Ben-Gurion is no longer saying there is room for both peoples in the land but is describing a change of heart, saying that until now he felt this way, but….”

    link to camera.org

    I don’t read or write Hebrew so perhaps someone here could clarify further. I’ll ask my partner what she thinks is an accurate translation.

    • Hostage
      April 10, 2012, 5:33 pm

      CAMERA, like me, seem to have picked up on the error that this letter is not the Hebrew original. They are even claiming that JPS have mistranslated the Hebrew transcription now toward a pro-expulsion bias.

      We all picked-up on the fact that neither you nor CAMERA are willing to explain the well-known published views of Ben Gurion on the subject of compulsory transfer of Arabs and that CAMERA was being dishonest in its earlier article when it made all of those specious claims that everyone was using a “mistranslation” of the sentence in question.

      Now they’ve finally admitted that Benny Morris thinks Ben Gurion is responsible for the scribble, but they still haven’t addressed the fact that Efraim Karsh and most of the others that they’ve mentioned agree with Morris that Ben Gurion was the probable culprit in this whodunnit.

      Camera isn’t even mentioning the source of this transcript of the Hebrew original that the staff of the Ben Gurion Archive has so kindly digitized and placed online:
      7. Ben-Gurion’s Manuscripts and Drafts
      Contains mainly typewritten drafts and a few manuscripts of Ben-Gurion’s books and articles, i.e. memoirs, notes, letters to Paula and his children, etc. (30 boxes)
      link to bgu-archives.migvan.co.il

      CAMERA lamely argues: But in JPS’s account, Ben-Gurion suddenly reverses course and writes “We must expel Arabs and take their place,” before immediately again explaining that he believes there is enough room in the country [i.e. the new Arab State] for both peoples and that force, if needed, will not be used to dispossess the Arabs.

      So what? He was talking about two different countries. Ben Gurion was talking about his support for the Peel plan. He said that the Jews would be able to penetrate further into the country only if they first established an Arab-free state in a portion of Palestine. He wanted that whole and unified country to be Jewish. He sure as hell didn’t suggest that there was room enough for both peoples to share that particular territory. He went on to explain that if the Arab’s refused to share their allotment of territory in the Negev after the partition, then the Jews would be able to speak to them in a different language, that they wouldn’t have otherwise possesed without the benefit of a superior army and that Arab-free base of operations. So it would not be a reversal to preface remarks about settling in portions of the Arab Negev with a comment indicating the importance of seizing that initial opportunity to displace the Arabs and take their place under the Peel proposal. After all, that’s the recurring theme of nearly every paragraph of this letter to Amos.

      In any event, CAMERA’s theory suffers from an insurmountable legal difficulty. Ben Gurion is discussing the use of force to “share” the territory of a new Arab state that would be created by the Peel partition. It envisioned the compulsory deportation of the entire Arab population of the new Jewish State as a preliminary measure. He unambiguously said that the Jews would use force, if need be, to colonize the uninhabited spaces of the new Arab State and Transjordan, because the Zionists would not tolerate them to go empty when they could be used by tens of thousands of Jews.

      Note: The Stimson Doctrine and the League of Nation’s Lytton Commission Report had established, by no later than 1932, that the acquisition of any territory by the threat or use of force constituted a grave breach of international law. So it really doesn’t make a damned bit of difference which version of this bellicose paragraph CAMERA chooses. In the final analysis, they’re still just as royally screwed by whichever illegal use of force Ben Gurion had in mind.

      Ben Gurion summarizes by stressing the need to erect a Jewish State at once, even if it’s not in the whole land, because the rest will come in time. So again, and again he introduces the idea of establishing this Arab-free Jewish state in a portion of Palestine as a preliminary step to taking over the whole country – with or without the consent of the Arabs.

      The bottom line is that anyone can:

      a) download the transcript in the original Hebrew that the Institute for Palestine Studies obtained from the Ben Gurion Archives Online: link to palestine-studies.org
      b) OCR it with ABBYY FineReader Online: link to finereader.abbyyonline.com
      c) Then paste this text from page 3 into Google Translate:
      אנו צריכים לגרש ערבים ולקחת מקומם.
      which will render it as:
      “We must expel Arabs and take their place.”

  16. proudzionist777
    April 10, 2012, 7:27 pm

    Lame!

    The Camera link contains a digitalized copy of Ben Gurion’s original handwritten letter w/scribble. Best evidence. Case closed.

    • traintosiberia
      April 10, 2012, 10:53 pm

      Does it matter what the Zionist says on the authenticity on the letter when Ben Guiron was known as a sharp liar ,anti Arab who used different dirty tricks depending on the nature of audiences and contexts from Paris Confernce 1919 all the way until his death and who still inspire liars like barak, Sharaon ( part dead) , Peres , Nethanyoo, and scores of Israeli academics,cabinet members,ambassadors to use different “languages” depending on the listeners and the venues with the sole purpose of gaining more arms, free money and free lands with the masterful use of “languages” whether from Germany or from US or from Arab? Time has come to move from attempt of ascribing plausibility of humanity to these souls. they are not.They are monsters.

  17. BethlehemOlivesRedeem
    April 11, 2012, 4:19 am

    Baffling all the ink spilled in lyinzionist claptrap pretending BenGurion and the other founding father terrorists of terrorist regime Israel weren’t intent on tranferring all “Arabs” from socalled eretzyisrael.
    Just read Benny Morris, who quite carefully documents this plan, in Ben-Gurion’s words, in Herzl’s words, etc. Just take, for instance his chapter in The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948, edited by Eugene L Rogan and Avi Shlaim, with afterword by Edward Said.
    In “Revisiting the Palestinian exodus of 1948,” Morris quotes BG at length, also noting where and when BG or other Jewish Agency leaders chose to muffle his words for public consumption when his frankness could trigger bad PR for the Zionist cause. See esp. pp. 39-48, which renders moot the debate. A couple of excerpts might clarify:
    Morris writes: “The controversy here is really about the nature of Zionism and about the degree of Zionist premeditation in what occurred in 1948.” He cleverly uses the intransitive verb “occurred” to avoid explicit naming of the agents of the “occurrences.” Essentially Morris quotes Ben-Gurion’s diary entries at length in which BG waxes poetic about the gift the Peel Commission’s July 1937 publication has put in the Zionists’ lap. A careful psychoanalysis of BG’s language would reveal how thrilled he is to lean on the excuse that the UK, and not Zionists, came up with the idea and so, if the Zionists carry out the transfer of Palestinian Arabs from Palestine into other Arab territories, it’s really the UK that bears responsibility and not the Zionists. It’s a kind of childish fantasy he articulates. He insists on overcoming any qualms about wholesale transfer, on the urgency of grasping this “historic opportunity that may not recur. The transfer clause in my eyes is more important than all our demands for additional land. This is the largest and most important andmost vital additional ‘area’… We must distinguish between the importance and urgency of our different demands. We must recognize the most important wisdom of any historical work: The wisdom of what comes first and what later.
    “There are a number of things that [we] struggle for now [but] which we cannot achieve now. For example the Negev. [On the other hand,] the evacuation [of the Arabs from] the [Jexreel] Valley we shall [i.e., must] achieve now — and, if not, perhaps we will never achieve it. If we do not succeed in removing the Arabs from our midst, when a royal commission proposes this to England, and transferring them to the Arab area — it will not be achieveable easily (or perhaps at all) after the [Jewish] state is established, and the rights of the minorities [in it] will [necessarily] be assured, and the whole world that is antagonistic towards us will carefully scrutinize our behavior towards our minorities. This thing must be done now — and the first step — perhaps the crucial [step] — is conditioning ourselves for its implementation.”
    A month later, at the Twentieth Zionist Congress convened in Zurich “specifically to consider the Peel proposals… Ben-Gurion once again posited transfer in no uncertain terms: ‘We do not want to expropriate,’ he said.
    “‘[But] transfer of population has already taken place in the [Jezreel] Valley, in the Sharon [Plain] and in other places. You are aware of the work of the Jewish National Fund in this respect. [The reference is to the sporadic uprooting of Arab tenant farmer communities from lands purchased by the JNF.] Now a transfer of wholly different dimensions will have to be carried out. In various parts of the country new Jewish settlement will not be possible unless there is a transfer of the Arab fellahin. . . It is important that this plan came from the Commission and not from us. . . The transfer of population is what makes possible a comprehensive settlement program. Fortunately for us, the Arab people have enormous desolate areas. The growing Jewish power in the country will increase our possibilities to carry out a large transfer. You must remember that this method [i.e., possibility] also contains an important humane and Zionist idea. To transfer parts of a people [i.e., the Arabs] to their own country and to settle empty lands [i.e.. Transjordan and Iraq]. . .'”
    Morris notes that although BG “had seen fit to speak of it [transfer] in the plenum of the Zionist Congress, the subject was still very sensitive,” evidence for which is found in the fact “that the Jewish press reports about the Congress’ proceedings generally failed to mention that Ben-Gurion or anyone else had come out strongly in favor of transfer or indeed had even raised the subject.”
    In addition to quoting other Yishuv leaders, Morris quotes BG: “I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see in it anything immoral.” Interesting that he would feel the need to assert its moral status, when elsewhere he is quoted as affirming entitlement of Zionists to “ruthless compulsion” and insisting “the Druze, several of the Beduin tribes in the Jordan Valley and the South, the Circassians, and perhaps also the Matawalis [Shi'ites of northern Galilee]” would “not mind being transferred, under favourable conditions, to some neighbouring country.” Complete transfer of Arabs would of course demand “ruthless compulsion.” Post-WWII settlement in Europe, “he envisioned,” writes Morris, “would include massive population transfers. But the Zionists must take care not to preach openly or advocate compulsory transfer, as this would be impolitic and would antagonize many in the West. At the same time, Ben-Gurion reasoned, the Zionist movement should do nothing to hamper those in the West who were busy advocting transfer as a necessary element in a solution to the Palestine problem.” By 1944 BG was able to state unequivocally: “Transfer of Arabs is easier than any other type of transfer. There are Arab states in the area. . . and it is clear that if the Arabs [of Palestine] are sent [to the Arab countries] this will better their situation and not the contrary. . .” Also at that Jewish Agency Executive meeting, soon-to-be Israel’s first Interior Minister Yitzhak Gruenbaum declared “It is the function of the Jews occasionally to make the Gentiles [goyim] aware of things they did not until then perceive. . . If for example it is possible to create artificially in Iraq conditions that will magnetize the Arabsof Palestine to emigrate to Iraq, I do not see in it any iniquity or crime. . .”
    Morris also quotes JA immigration director Eliahu Dobkin: “There will be in the country a large [Arab] minority and it must be ejected. There is no room for our internal inhibitions [in this matter].” Werner David Senator said “I do not regard the question of transfer as a moral or immoral problem. . .”
    A month later, BG proposed bringing a million Jewish immigrants “immediately” to Palestine’s shores, but cautioned: “I am opposed that any proposal for transfer should come from our side. I do not reject transfer on moral grounds and i do not reject it on political grounds. If there is a chance for it [I support it];. . . But it must not be a Jewish proposal.”
    In short, the historical development of the transfer question (ethnic cleansing, in our postmodern, post-Yugoslavia international-law terminology) in the minds of Zionist founders of the state of Israel became decisively something about which they could speak honestly amongst themselves, but dishonestly to the rest of the world. Morris writes that before 1937 Zionist thinking about transfer was “haphazard,” but “from 1937 on” there was “virtual consensus in support of the notion” and that this consensus ‘conditioned the Zionist leadership, and below it, the officials and officers who managed the new states civilian and military agancies, for the transfer that took place.”
    Of particular interest is the fact that Theodor Herzl doesn’t mention transfer in his books Der Judenstaat [The Jews' State] and Altneuland [Old-New Land]. But he does write in his 12 June 1895 diary these words: “We must expropriate gently. . . We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country. . . Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.”
    Morris comments: “Given that the vast majority of Palestine’s Arabs at the turn of the century were ‘poor,’ Herzl can only have meant some form of massive transfer. But he realized that discretion and circumspection must accompany any such enterprise.
    “This discretion and circumspection was to characterize Zionist references to the idea of transfer during the following decades.”
    In short, the Zionists agreed that non-Jews are not entitled to be dealt with honestly by Zionists intent on God’s work of redeeming Eretz Yisrael. The end must justify the means. And the tens of millions of Arabs must be expected to grant Jews their prophetic scriptural inheritance, the little plot of land between the river and the sea and let the Jews prod the local residents to pack up and leave.
    Well, gosh, wishful thinking doesn’t make something so. But to avoid cognitive dissonance, BG and his gang of Jewish mafia dons decided it wasn’t bad of them to choose to bully the indigenous Palestinians out of their inherited lands.
    So they decided to lie, agree to whatever UN membership conditions, international covenants are required to gain full legitimacy as a member of the Euro-American civilized club of nationstates calling themselves ‘democracies’ and then break the covenants whenever it suits their superior Jewish souls, goyims be damned.
    Morris has lots of examples of how lying became official foreign policy for Israel, if anyone cares to examine his extensively-researched books. And he’s a good source for pro-Zionist readers, since he believes Israel “should have finished the job [of ethnic cleansing] in 48″.

    • MHughes976
      April 11, 2012, 6:33 am

      Individual Zionist leaders may have formed different plans and intentions at different times. But I don’t see how the basic idea of Zionism, that the Holy Land belongs by right to Jewish people, could have been or could now be put into effect by any arrangement which enfranchised everyone and did not provide for the Jewish element to be a substantial majority. In the 30s there was clearly a group within Jewish Palestine that talked, loud and clear, of ‘non-exclusiveness’. But this could never have been more than self-deception. You can’t claim a special right for yourselves and at the same time fully include others.

    • Annie Robbins
      April 11, 2012, 8:33 am

      See esp. pp. 39-48, which renders moot the debate.

      link to books.google.com

    • Blake
      April 15, 2012, 12:11 pm

      “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” by Ilan Pappe also has extensive info regarding the ethnic cleansing program.

      @MHughes: Or anybody who thinks rationally and logically either. It beggars belief the amount of denial (read: lying) that the zioNUTs spew.

  18. Bing Bong
    April 11, 2012, 5:07 am

    How is using optical character recognition on a transcribed copy of an original handwritten and damaged document then using Google translate to render it in English in any way the bottom line?

    The bottom line is reading the original handwritten letter, taking note of any amendments, bearing in mind why, when and by whom they could have been made, and being aware of the immediate (and indeed Hostage, general) context) in which it was written. I would add that keeping in mind not to introduce little changes to the translation (of the original or the transcription) that suit your own political ends like those CAMERA claim were “invented and inserted by JPS’s Hebrew department” is also important.

    As they say in Creation and Manipulation of Archives: The Israeli Example

    “Despite the deficiencies in the creation and preservation of archives and the instances of document mishandling, archives and written sources should not be rejected but rather examined with greater precaution, critical spirit and humility.”

    This does not mean using OCR and Google Translate to interrogate the archives and justifying these completely inadequate results with your own wholly anti-Zionist interpretation of history.

    I would urge all to read further than Anne’s quote, in fact keep reading immediately after the point she selected to end her quote.

    “The original document contains a rectification: a sentence and a half are scribbled over in ink. The editors involved in the publication of Ben Gurion’s letters noticed that the ink used to cross out the passage was different from the one used in the rest of the letter. Through modern techniques, the publishing house succeeded in restoring the original version by recovering the hidden words. In the damaged version Ben Gurion states very clearly that he is in favor of a transfer of the population, as stipulated in the recommendations of the Peel Commission Report of 1937, which recommended moving populations between the future Jewish and Arab states. Ben Gurion wrote to his son: “We must expel the Arabs and take their place…”. The original restored version states the exact opposite. In fact Ben Gurion wrote: “ We must not expel the Arabs and take their place.” Because the negation was removed, the meaning of the sentence was totally corrupted and numerous, credulous Israeli researchers, never believing for one minute that the letter was not authentic, used this document as such in their works.”

    • Annie Robbins
      April 11, 2012, 9:02 am

      and now we’ve come full circle. link to mondoweiss.net

      and if you scroll: link to mondoweiss.net

      Everyone already knew that hundreds of thousands of Arabs had been driven out of Palestine, the DMZs, and the Golan – and that Israel had adopted policies and martial law to prevent them from ever returning to the Israeli farms, towns, and villages that had sprung-up after the Arabs had been removed.

      You’d have to be pretty gullible to accept that Ben Gurion really meant “We must not displace the Arabs”, but we will use our superior army to take over and settle Jews, so that the whole undivided country can be Jewish.

      you never answered.

      • Bing Bong
        April 11, 2012, 9:08 am

        Some of us haven’t moved.

      • Hostage
        April 11, 2012, 10:06 am

        Some of us haven’t moved.

        Some of you should address the fact that Ben Gurion helped invent the concept of Conquest through Hebrew Labor. When 1937 rolled-around, there weren’t any simple-minded Palestinian Arabs left who really believed that settlement of tens of thousands of Jews was intended for their benefit.

        Ben Gurion destroyed his own political career and his reputation for honesty and smart handling of Israel’s foreign relations with the Superpowers in the Lavon Affair, e.g. See Stubborn Old Ben Gurion Resigns in Lavon Affair. link to goo.gl

        After the 1967 War he was busy publishing material through the Labor party publishing house that would redeem his reputation as the far-sighted founding father. He cherry-picked letters that portrayed him patiently planning all along for the eventual redemption of all the Land of Israel, through his handling of the armed forces and the premiership.

        The original restored version states the exact opposite. In fact Ben Gurion wrote: “ We must not expel the Arabs and take their place.”

        Of course that portion of the letter wasn’t “restored” by Ben Gurion, it’s still crossed-out.

  19. Hostage
    April 11, 2012, 9:16 am

    How is using optical character recognition on a transcribed copy of an original handwritten and damaged document then using Google translate to render it in English in any way the bottom line?

    Because you haven’t addressed the fact that, over the years, Ben Gurion himself produced contradictory documentary evidence in the form of the letter, the transcript, and the various manuscripts. The letter to Amos appears on pages 153-157 of the Vallentine, Mitchell & Co. edition that was published in 1971. That version completely omitted the four lines and two sentences in question. That particular manuscript is also part of the collection available to researchers from the Ben Gurion archives: link to goo.gl

    So the bottom line is that Pappe and other researchers were not “mistranslating” a damn thing as CAMREA had falsely claimed. CAMERA can’t accuse anyone of fabricating evidence of Ben Gurion’s support for forced transfer to establish an Arab-rein Jewish State in part of Palestine, or a plan to colonize the remaining states of Arab Palestine and Transjordan using a superior army and the threat or use of force. I supplied you with verbatim quotes from his own self-published diaries and the minutes of the Jewish Agency Executive for the summer and fall of 1937. Taken together with the uncontested contents of every version of his letter to Amos that he ever published, Ben Gurion himself revealed that those were his exact intentions by the early 1970s.

    In 1937, Ben Gurion was also in charge of the Jewish Agency’s Defense portfolio. The official history of the Haganah itself reveals that he personally commissioned the preparation of a plan for the conquest of all of Palestine in that year, and that Plan Avner was the result. It envisioned the conquest of Palestine in three phases and Plan Dalet was one of the subsequent revisions. If you’re going to keep running off at the mouth, please address all of that unchallengeable mountain of evidence or stop wasting our time with all of this suggestive nonsense.

  20. Bing Bong
    April 11, 2012, 10:31 am

    “Taken together with the uncontested contents of every version of his letter to Amos that he ever published….”

    The contention remains with these versions because the consensus is now in accordance with the original handwritten letter once the damage is taken into account namely “We must not expel…”.

    Why do you think any other evidence (excepting that which points to any sort of foul play, hoax or ‘evil reason’ as I think you put it) can change the contents of a handwritten primary source? It doesn’t matter what your OCR software does or what extra little tidbits JPS sneak into their published translation or what other wider context from the historical record adds, it doesn’t change the sentence any more than an obviously totally incongruous and probably accidental scribble that renders the letter internally nonsensical added at some point by who knows who in different ink.

    If you are so happy and confident with your interpretation from your unchallengeable mountain of evidence then why are you so worried about such a small thing as this? Is it really such a big threat because of the popularity of this particular mistranslation among anti-Zionists like yourself? Surely this isn’t that great a pillar of anti-Zionist reasoning considering the unchallengeable mountain of evidence you have that dwarfs the sentiment of this one single letter?

    • Hostage
      April 11, 2012, 9:28 pm

      The contention remains with these versions because the consensus is now in accordance with the original handwritten letter once the damage is taken into account namely “We must not expel…”.

      Most of the world has never heard of this letter, but they have heard all about Israel. The overwhelming consensus of world opinion is that Israel deliberately invaded the neighboring states when its survival wasn’t threatened in a series of “wars of choice” that it’s own Prime Ministers talked about quite openly. The Zionists destroyed hundreds of Arab villages; colonized the territories with hundreds of thousands of their illegal settlers; and displaced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the process. All of that constitutes a flagrant violation of international law.

      There are a handful of mendacious idiots in StandWithUs, CAMERA, and the Hasbara Fellowship who desperately grasp at any straw or debating tactic to argue against those well known facts of history and the frank published confessions that are contained in the memoirs of most of the founding fathers of Israel. As often as not, they are an undisputed matter of public record available from the State’s Archives too.

      If you are so happy and confident with your interpretation from your unchallengeable mountain of evidence then why are you so worried about such a small thing as this?

      I’m not worried. I’m just pointing out the flaws in your thesis. I’ve shown that, even if we accepted your interpretation, that still means Ben Gurion used the rest of the letter to Amos to outline a plan for the phased conquest of all of Palestine that would occur after the partition was implemented. The documentary record shows that he spoke and wrote about ignoring the boundaries of partition and conquering Palestine quite a lot. That intention was incorporated in the Jewish Agency’s own plan of partition and a series of military plans that called for probes and unprovoked armed attacks against Arab villages and bases in the proposed Arab State. There were standing orders to expel the inhabitants if they dared to defend themselves against one of these pre-planned acts of aggression. Those details can be confirmed from the Zionist-friendly Jewish Virtual Library version of Plan Dalet. link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

      That plan also reveals the intention of maintaining and defending the blocks of Zionist watchtower and stockade military forts located beyond the boundaries of the Jewish state in the territory of the new Arab State. Many of those fortifications were hastily erected in overnight “lightning raids”. Their purpose was to enlarge the borders of the Jewish state beyond those contained in any of the partition proposals. Moshe Sharret’s diary explains that Ben Gurion’s long-term goals constituted a serious violation of international law and violated the norms of behavior even for his own day and age. He also described how Ben Gurion’s clumsy attempts to deceive the rest of the world and deny Israel’s wrongdoing only caused more international public embarrassment.

      CAMERA may think they can distract attention from those facts with a bunch of arm waiving about a scribble, some innuendo, or naked intimidation to stop people from discussing the rest of the contents Pappe’s book, but that’s never going to happen. It’s not just Ben Gurion’s letter. Pappe’s works cite Ben Gurion’s diaries, Sharret’s diaries, Rabin’s biography, the minutes of the meetings of the Jewish Agency Executive, & etc. People no longer accept infantile explanations or CAMERA’s tactics.

  21. proudzionist777
    April 12, 2012, 7:09 am

    @Hostage. A gracious loser you are not.

    Be that as it may, you said, “The overwhelming consensus of world opinion is that Israel deliberately invaded the neighboring states when its survival wasn’t threatened in a series of “wars of choice”…

    I know you’re can’t be talking about the 1948 War or the 1973 War.

    As for the 1967 War, the UN refused to brand Israel the aggressor in that conflict and yes, though Israel’s survival may not have been at stake, Egypt’s troop deployments in the Sinai, her kicking out the UN buffer force, Egypt’s overflights of Dimona using secret, state of the art Russian fighter bombers and Egypt’s mutual defense pacts with Israel’s Arab neighbors may have pushed Israel to war.

    Be that as it may. Israel offered to return Sinai and Golan to Egypt and Syria days after the wars ended in return for a signed peace agreement but Egypt and Syria said ‘no, no, no’.

    • Shmuel
      April 12, 2012, 8:50 am

      Israel offered to return Sinai and Golan to Egypt and Syria days after the wars ended in return for a signed peace agreement

      The last time you made this assertion and were challenged to provide sources, the best you could come up with was Tom Segev (who also wrote that the offer was formulated in such a way as to ensure that it would be rejected, the better to blame “Arab intransigence”), and Eisenberg and Caplan – whose unsourced assertion extends the Israeli “offer” to the West Bank and Gaza as well (contradicted by Benny Morris, with whom you concurred).

      See the discussion at: link to mondoweiss.net

    • Woody Tanaka
      April 12, 2012, 9:53 am

      “@Hostage. A gracious loser you are not.”

      LMAO. He’s not losing. Have you even read the exchange? It’s the other side that is insisting that everyone assume something which hasn’t be shown, and which contradicts the known character of the devil Ben Gurion, for no reason other than because it protects their wussified Zionist ego.

      “I know you’re can’t be talking about the 1948 War or the 1973 War.”

      Pudracist, the 1948 conflict was started by the yishuv the year before when they started ethnically cleansing Palestine of its rightful owners, the Palestinians, and the 1973 War was a direct result of the war the Israelis started in 1967.

      • Hostage
        April 12, 2012, 12:41 pm

        It’s the other side that is insisting that everyone assume something which hasn’t be shown, and which contradicts the known character of the devil Ben Gurion, for no reason other than because it protects their wussified Zionist ego.

        In July of 1937, the media in Palestine was alive with recriminations about the Peel Commission recommendation on “exchange of populations”. The plan effected over a hundred thousand Arabs, but there were only a few hundred Jews who were actually living on land that had been purchased in the proposed Arab State. The Jewish Agency was shreying that the recommendation violated the minimum Balfour Declaration guarantee, because it had assured foreign Jews the right to immigrate under “suitable conditions” and settle on vacant land in Palestine. The Arabs argued that it violated their minimum guarantee to at least remain in their own country and not be evicted from their ancestral lands in order to create “suitable conditions” for settlement of foreign Jews, e.g. link to jpress.org.il

        CAMERA has played down the fact that the original letter contains a redundant copy of this entire sentence written in Ben Gurion’s own handwriting. It’s just as likely that Ben Gurion’s mind was wandering; that he repeated the same sentence twice; and subsequently noticed the redundancy and the fact that he’d gotten off-message at this particular point.

        The letter to Amos follows a consistent pattern of A-B, where:
        A: Is about the Jewish State. He stresses the advantages of immediately creating a State in part of Palestine, that is wholly Jewish, in order to facilitate preparations for a deeper penetration of the territory; and
        B: Is about the Arab States. He stresses the intention to use force or the threat of force against the Arab states of Palestine during the post-partition era if they stand in the way of Jewish settlement of their territories;

        Ben Gurion was certainly in favor of expelling the Arabs from the proposed Jewish state and taking their place. He said as much in his own diary two months before he wrote this letter to Amos and claimed there was nothing unethical about the idea. A month after the letter to Amos was written, the Jewish Agency created a Committee on Arab Population Transfer with Ben Gurion’s full support to prepare their own proposal on the subject. Ben Gurion self-published his diaries through Am Oved starting in 1971 – the very same year that he sub-licensed his 1968 edition of “Letters to Paula and the Children” to Vallentine. The notion that anyone would accept the idea that he intended to send mixed signals and accidentally harmonized this paragraph with the contents of the rest of the letter (and his other writings on the same subject) would seem to be pretty remote. But CAMERA is obviously doing it best to distract attention away from the things that the uncontested portions of this letter have to say.

    • Hostage
      April 12, 2012, 10:25 am

      @Hostage. A gracious loser you are not.

      @ proudzionist777. You’re “winning” just like Charlie Sheen:

      “Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. — Moshe Dayan

      By 1937, the doctrine of Conquest through Hebrew Labor was notorious for having created a class of displaced Arab Cultivators, despite Zionist intervention in the Landless Arab Inquiries and a vigorous hasbara campaign.

      We’re discussing two far-fetched CAMERA articles where they were shreying because Exeter University and JPS were unimpressed with Camera’s charges against Pappe.

      They’ve revectored their attack from the earlier fabrications about the use of multiple “mistranslations” to a bunch of idle speculation from Morris et al that Ben Gurion might have accidentally scribbled over a section of the letter by mistake. We know that Ben Gurion’s publisher, Vallentine, discovered the scribble, but they reacted by omitting these two sentences from their copyrighted version.

      I simply pointed out that whichever version you winners finally settle upon, this letter will still constitute evidence that the Zionist leadership were engaged in a joint criminal enterprise. They were planning and preparing to commit acts of aggression in violation of international law against the remaining Arab states in Palestine during the post-partition era. A variety of sources, including Ben Gurion himself, confirm that he favored forced transfer of the Arab population out of the Jewish State and didn’t see any ethical problems with the idea. The notion that he hadn’t already displaced Arabs and Arab villages is also risible.

      • proudzionist777
        April 12, 2012, 6:34 pm

        “By 1937, the doctrine of Conquest through Hebrew Labor was notorious for having created a class of displaced Arab Cultivators, despite Zionist intervention in the Landless Arab Inquiries and a vigorous hasbara campaign.”

        C’mon Hostage. You read Professor Kenneth Stein’s, “The Land Question in Palestine.–1939″,University of North Carolina Press.
        You know that Arab landowners, Arab moneylenders, market forces, natural agricultural failures and inefficient Mandatory regulations had plenty to do with the creation of landless Arabs.

        C’mon.

      • Hostage
        April 12, 2012, 11:39 pm

        C’mon Hostage. You read Professor Kenneth Stein’s, “The Land Question in Palestine.–1939″,University of North Carolina Press.

        Apparently I’ve paid more attention to what Stein actually said about the influence of the Jewish Agency and WZO on all of the groups that you mentioned. They worked to negate the rights of Arab cultivators and lobbied against the findings about the landless Arabs in all of the Commission reports during the 1920s and early 1930s.

        He said they used installment payments to insure that, by the time the land was delivered, it was free of Arabs and that they saw to it that policies were adopted to prevent the displaced Arabs from resettling near the Jews:

        Second, when the issue of Arab landlessness caused by the land sale process was raised in the late 1920s and early 1930s, the Jewish Agency and other land-purchasing organizations took the position — and effectively influenced the British Government in London — against resettling or transferring Arab peasants from the hill regions of Palestine to the low‑lying plain and valley regions, the locus of Jewish land acquisition. Nahum Sokolow, the newly elected president of World Zionist Organization, enthusiastically supported a policy in 1931 preventing the resettlement of landless Arabs in Jewish districts; while ‘Awni Abd al-Hadi, an Arab lawyer and later leader of the Istiqlal Party in Palestine, protested against making the coastal plain into a Jewish preserve.

        –Kenneth W. Stein, “The Jewish National Fund: Land Purchase Methods and Priorities, 1924 – 1939″, Middle Eastern Studies, Volume 20 Number 2, pp. 190-205, April 1984, link to ismi.emory.edu

        I short, the Jews already had a public policy of using only Hebrew labor, and of expelling the Arabs and taking their place in the areas they purchased for the establishment of their “national home”.

      • proudzionist777
        April 14, 2012, 8:28 am

        @Hostage. You said:

        “I short, the Jews already had a public policy of using only Hebrew labor, and of expelling the Arabs and taking their place in the areas they purchased for the establishment of their “national home”.

        To begin with, it was Arab landowners who evicted Arab tenants (as a precondition for land sales to the Zionists).
        That said, H.M.G. saw to it that former Arab tenants and small landowning Arabs who’d sold their land to Zionists, were resettled.
        By order of law, the now landless Arabs were well compensated by the Zionist land buyers for the inconvenience of being evicted (by their former Arab landlords).

        Hostage. You may have additionally overlooked some of what Stein said.

        For instance, he said that, “In the early 1930’s, Arab land sales and Jewish land purchase contributed to the evolution of an Arab landless class. But the principle factor influencing Arab landlessness was the fellaheen’s deteriorating economic condition.”

        As well, Stein said that, ..Arab merchants, moneylenders, landlords, and other professional who had liens on a segment of village population forced many to sell to them. In turn, the sales were made to Jewish purchasers.”Stein, page 142.

        Hostage said . ” ..public policy of using only Hebrew labor”.

        Stein says, “Some owner-occupiers, tenants and laborers were forced to leave agricultural pursuits solely because of the worsening and untenable economic situation. In late 1933, more than 5,000 Arab laborers, not all of them landless, were employed by Jewish landowners in the orange growing districts.”

        Hostage said: “..expelling the Arabs and taking their place in the areas they purchased for the establishment of their “national home”.

        But Stein concluded that, “The seed for eventual partition of Palestine had been planted. H.M.G.’s purpose was clear: resettle landless Palestinian Arabs away from existing Jewish settlements to avoid armed communal conflict”. Stein, page 138.

        Hostage. Are we on the same page?

  22. Bing Bong
    April 12, 2012, 10:02 am

    “Most of the world has never heard of this letter…”

    I meant the consensus among historians (and indeed people with a grain of sense and basic grasp of grammatical sentence structure and additionally, the obvious) rather than ‘the world’.

    As to your statement about most of the world not knowing about the letter yet there being an…

    “overwhelming consensus of world opinion…..that Israel deliberately invaded the neighboring states when its survival wasn’t threatened in a series of “wars of choice” that it’s own Prime Ministers talked about quite openly. The Zionists destroyed hundreds of Arab villages; colonized the territories with hundreds of thousands of their illegal settlers; and displaced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the process.”

    ….is an incredibly sweeping generalisation mixed in with a very specific set of opinions. How you can know this is overwhelming world opinion to such a specific degree is difficult to answer. The kindest thing I can say about it is that it isn’t impossible I suppose, yet is almost certainly a result of using specific examples to project your own anti-Zionist position onto most of the rest of the world. You don’t have to worry about being alone, there are plenty of other people in the world who hate Israelis.

    “I’m not worried. I’m just pointing out the flaws in your thesis.”

    My thesis is JPS didn’t provide a full translation of the original Hebrew letter like they claimed. They have provided a full (in fact overflowing as they’ve kindly added some of their own words at no extra cost) translation of the transcription which ignores the completely incongruous scribble that renders the paragraph nonsensical and is regarded as such by consensus among historians and those without a pre-existing anti-Zionist position. I don’t see how any other comments BG made about Peel or the Lavon affair has shown where I’ve been mistaken in pointing this out.

    “Ben Gurion used the rest of the letter to Amos to outline a plan for the phased conquest of all of Palestine that would occur after the partition was implemented.”

    “After all, that’s the recurring theme of nearly every paragraph of this letter to Amos.”

    I don’t see any imperative of forced expulsion or use of force to displace Arabs from the Negev (or whatever territory) immediately follows from anything written in the Amos correspondence that would render “We must expel…” a viable phrase within the letter and certainly not within the paragraph.

    The letter gives much weight to cooperation with the Arabs, making the prediction that cooperation would be mutually very beneficial. Which Arabs (apart from the rich ruling despotic elites) have come to benefit the most in real terms in the Middle East?

    • Hostage
      April 13, 2012, 1:14 am

      I meant the consensus among historians (and indeed people with a grain of sense and basic grasp of grammatical sentence structure and additionally, the obvious) rather than ‘the world’.

      The consensus among top scholars is that Ben Gurion ethnically cleansed Palestine. In fact, Morris is infamous for bemoaning the fact that Ben Gurion didn’t go far enough.

      ….is an incredibly sweeping generalisation mixed in with a very specific set of opinions. How you can know this is overwhelming world opinion to such a specific degree is difficult to answer.

      It’s actually quite easy if you’re either well read or well educated. A Forward article last year, “Top Genocide Scholars Battle Over How To Characterize Israel’s Actions” wasn’t a debate over whether or not ethnic cleansing had occurred, but rather whether that ethnic cleansing constituted the crime of genocide. Both Martin Shaw and Omer Bartov agreed that Israel was guilty of the serious crime of forced population transfer.

      When Morris, Emmanuel Sivan, and others reviewed Karsh’s book, Fabricating Israeli History: The “New Historians”, they pointed out that he promised a lot, but failed to deliver hard evidence. They also pointed out that he ignored mountains of declassified evidence that didn’t fit his thesis. They said that material had been the subject of entire issues of serious academic journals and had long since become part of the standard university curriculum used throughout the world in a variety of Middle Eastern Studies specialty fields, including history, sociology, political science, etc. link to palestine-studies.org

      In fact, Pappe has been the editor of several books sold by the textbook divisions of leading UK and US university press houses. I mentioned above that they are based upon multiple sources, including Ben Gurion’s diaries, Sharett’s diaries, Rabin’s biography, the minutes of the meetings of the Jewish Agency Executive, Yosef Weitz diaries, & etc.

      I don’t see how any other comments BG made about Peel or the Lavon affair . . .

      Then it’s a good thing that ignorance and naiveté isn’t physically painful, because this letter is supposedly Ben Gurion’s attempt to justify his support for the Peel partition proposal to his own son. At the same time, he was creating quite a document trail on that very same subject. It was no accident that he elected to transcribe and publish all of this in latter life, beginning in 1968, with the assistance of committees from government and the Labor-Socialist party publishing house, Am Oved.

      The Véronique Meimoun article related the account of a reporter from Galei Tsahal the Army Radio, who interviewed Rehavam Zeevi, deputy of the extreme right party Moledet, and a former general in 1998, He revealed that in 1953, on immediate order from Ben Gurion, he burned all the documents proving that the Israeli army was responsible for the attack on the Jordanian village of Kybia. Before he carried out the order from the Prime Minister, Zeevi had copied all the documents which he then hid away. Sharett’s diary confirms that Ben Gurion lied to the United Nations and the rest of the world about the IDF’s role.

      A document examiner would naturally be asked to determine if a questioned item originated from the same source as these other known items on the topic of the Peel proposal and if the source of all the letters, diaries, transcripts, and manuscripts – Ben Gurion hinself – was known to have falsified or destroyed evidence in other instances.

      The letter gives much weight to cooperation with the Arabs

      Not in the wholly Jewish state that Peel and Ben Gurion were in favor of establishing through forced transfer, and not anywhere else in Palestine and Transjordan if the Arabs stood in Ben Gurion’s way. He specifically mentions that the Zionists would no longer tolerate that.

  23. Kathleen
    April 12, 2012, 11:05 am

    Have I read that all Palestinian land bought or stolen by the Jewish Agency can only be sold to Jews? Had read a great deal about the history of the Jewish Agency about 15 or so years ago. Is that right that land held by the JA are held in trust for Jews and cannot be sold to non Jews ever.

    The letters between President Kennedy and Ben Gurion are intriguing. Kennedy being the last President to demand that Israel open up Dimona to inspections
    link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

    • Hostage
      April 12, 2012, 12:55 pm

      Have I read that all Palestinian land bought or stolen by the Jewish Agency can only be sold to Jews?

      There is a “Gentleman’s Agreement” as a result of the Ka’adan case. Any JNF Land that accidentally passes into Arab hands as a result of an ILA offering will be repaid to the JNF in kind from State-owned land elsewhere. The JNF still holds its lands in trust for the Jewish people. Article 3(c) of the JNF Memorandum of Association says that JNF operates to accrue: “benefit, whether directly or indirectly, to those of Jewish race or descendancy”.

  24. Bing Bong
    April 13, 2012, 4:49 am

    “It’s actually quite easy if you’re either well read or well educated.”

    This doesn’t inform you about an overwhelming consensus of world opinion though, it is an incredibly sweeping generalisation about a very specific set of opinions that you admit requires being well read or well educated to address never mind come to a conclusion about.

    “Then it’s a good thing that ignorance and naiveté isn’t physically painful”

    Even if they were, the original handwritten letter wouldn’t change, at the very most these physical symptoms might impair perception enough to ‘see’ a different letter to Amos, although in the case of JPS I think their addition of words that aren’t there is more to do with ideology than a physical ailment, but I’m not a doctor of course. I wish them well with their recovery if indeed they are suffering from any kind of physical distress.

    “The letter gives much weight to cooperation with the Arabs”

    This context supports the phrase “We must not expel…”

    • Hostage
      April 13, 2012, 5:48 am

      This doesn’t inform you about an overwhelming consensus of world opinion though, it is an incredibly sweeping generalisation

      Actually you’re the one who keeps repeating sweeping generalizations about what all the nameless experts say. I’ve named my sources and they’re top experts in their fields who agree about the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and the role played by the Zionist leadership in expelling Arabs in order to facilitate Jewish settlement.

      More to the point, their views are part of the standard university curriculum in Middle East Studies around the globe, while your views, and those held of CAMERA, are certainly not.

      This context supports the phrase “We must not expel…”

      Even if I accepted that, he was still talking about subjugating the Arabs in their own state after the partition had occurred through the threat or use of force in order to facilitate illegal Jewish colonization.

  25. Bing Bong
    April 13, 2012, 10:55 am

    I don’t see why you wouldn’t accept that.

  26. Hostage
    April 13, 2012, 11:58 am

    I don’t see why you wouldn’t accept that.

    For starters, because that sentence wasn’t present in the subsequent Hebrew transcripts and English manuscripts that were produced and copyrighted by Ben Gurion and his licensees.

    I’ve already shown that the Zionists had a colonial policy in place of making their land purchases Arab-rein before they took possession. I’ve shown that the Yishuv supported public policies that prevented landless Arabs from being employed on their properties and industries. They and the President of the WZO even supported policies that prevented landless Arabs from settling near Jewish districts after they had been evicted. I’ve quoted unchallengeable evidence that was published by Ben Gurion and the Jewish Agency which establishes that they endorsed the plan for forced transfer of the Arab population from the Jewish state. They explicitly called for military probes and unprovoked attacks against Arabs that would result in their expulsion if they responded by defending their villages. Rabin wrote accounts about Ben Gurion’s role in the ethnic cleansing of Lod and Ramle. I cited the ethnic cleansing of the Latrun salient that made way for Canada Park. Henry Norr has provided evidence for the case in which a formal international agreement with Ben Gurion wasn’t worth the paper it was written on for the “Israeli Arab” citizens of Kiryat Gat. link to sfgate.com

    The UNSCOP report revealed that the Beersheba Bedouin had been settled on the land for generations and had two million dunams under cultivation for cereal grain production alone. Ben Gurion’s government refused to recognize their settlements and it is ludicrous for anyone to suggest that the Zionists ever felt any compunction about displacing them and stealing their land.

    More importantly I’ve cited evidence which shows that top genocide scholars have agreed that Israel committed the crime of ethnic cleansing – and there are all of the thousands of Palestinian and Syria refugees who testify that Israel has expelled them and occupied their States.

    There’s simply no possibility that I would ever accept an unproved statement put forward as a premise that was contradicted by so much overwhelming evidence of its falsity, consisting of both Zionist words and deeds.

  27. Bing Bong
    April 14, 2012, 7:32 am

    “There’s simply no possibility that I would ever accept an unproved statement put forward as a premise that was contradicted by so much overwhelming evidence of its falsity, consisting of both Zionist words and deeds.”

    I’m only asking if you think that phrase is present as a part of the original Hebrew letter, (as per the original blog post, CAMERA and my ‘thesis’) not whether you believe it represents an accurate statement of Zionism. I take it you believe the following are present in the letter (barring any further unnoticed JPS deceptions)?

    “At that point I am confident that we would not fail in settling
    in the remaining parts of the country, through agreement and understanding with
    our Arab neighbors, or through some other means.”

    “it will be possible for the Arabs to benefit enormously from the Jews, not only materially but politically as well.”

    “once we are numerous and powerful in the country the Arabs will realize that it is better for them to become our allies.”

    “They will derive benefits from our assistance if they, of their own free will, give us
    the opportunity to settle in all parts of the country.”

    “But the Jews could be equal allies, real friends, not occupiers or tyrants over them.”

    “All of our ambitions are built on the assumption that has proven true throughout all of our activities in the land — that there is enough room for us and for the Arabs in the land [of Israel].”

    Your mountain of unchallengeable evidence doesn’t means that these statements above are not present in the letter does it?

    What makes you think “We must not expel…” can’t be in the original Hebrew letter too?

    “….because that sentence wasn’t present in the subsequent Hebrew transcripts and English manuscripts that were produced and copyrighted by Ben Gurion and his licensees.”

    But remember

    “There’s ample evidence that Ben Gurion and others revised and destroyed documents, censored comments recorded by stenographers, and omitted or lied about facts recorded by others to create “real” fake documents of history. ”

    ….so which is it? Either BG amended the letter with the scribble (and remember the sentence reads ‘We must expel’ after the scribble was introduced, not the other way round) to portray himself negatively in that sentence and published (going against opposite sentiment elsewhere in the rest of the letter, grammar, concensus and common sense) or the mountain of unchallengeble evidence means that this original handwritten Hebrew letter is a fake to portray BG in a good light (and presumeably someone at the printers or something screwed up so that “We must expel…” was published instead)

    If you think it is a fake document you can’t really cite it as evidence for a campaign of land theft or whatever it was you (or someone else?) said.

    Clinging on to this one sentence raises questions about your objectivity.

    • Hostage
      April 14, 2012, 12:58 pm

      Clinging on to this one sentence raises questions about your objectivity.

      LOL! Try clicking on my user name and searching for “Letters to Paula”. I’ve never cited this sentence in any of my other comments before, because it doesn’t appear in the English versions published by Vallentine or University of Pittsburgh Press. I’ve usually just cited the other damning evidence that this letter contains – and there’s plenty of that.

      I’m only asking if you think that phrase is present as a part of the original Hebrew letter, (as per the original blog post, CAMERA and my ‘thesis’) not whether you believe it represents an accurate statement of Zionism.

      Then you’re not reading my comments, because I’ve already said Ben Gurion repeated the whole sentence twice. I’ve also noted that, whichever version you prefer or how much you try to sugar coat it, he was discussing a serious violation of international law. That pretty much represents an accurate statement of Zionism.

      • MHughes976
        April 14, 2012, 1:57 pm

        I really don’t know, Hostage, how you summon up the patience for all this.

      • Blake
        April 15, 2012, 12:18 pm

        Amen. Hostage, along with other patient commentators to these contrary to all men attention seeking hasbarats, deserve a medal.

  28. Blake
    April 14, 2012, 10:04 am

    2 words: Plan Dalet or Plan D (Zionist blueprint for their ethnic cleansing program)

  29. Bing Bong
    April 14, 2012, 6:38 pm

    Where else does he say “We must expel Arabs and take their place”?

    • Annie Robbins
      April 14, 2012, 6:45 pm

      bingbong, why aren’t you using the reply functioin? have you figured out if you do not use it your comment drops to the bottom and is not directly attached to the conversation leaving ample space for others to come back and spam between the two comments at a later date making the thread very hard to follow.

      this is a common tactic of trolls with an agenda, especially on long important conversations of historical relevance. it makes it very difficult to follow a conversation when one person continually posts to the main thread instead of using the individual comment reply function.

      if you are responding to hostage then place your comment in the box provided by clicking on the ‘reply’ below the very comment you are addressing please. thank you.

      ALERT: for students or researchers. at anytime you can simply click on hostages name and do a search for this conversation (pg 29 and 30 in his archives) and all his comments will appear in one place.

    • Hostage
      April 15, 2012, 9:08 am

      Where else does he say “We must expel Arabs and take their place”?

      I’ve supplied you with links, cites, long verbatim quotes from his diary, and the minutes of the Jewish Agency Executive meetings in which he endorsed forced transfer in my comments above. Annie also gave you a link to some of the same material in Eugene L. Rogan, Avi Shlaim, The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948.

      You’re obviously not interested in the other evidence that we’ve provided, or you could have addressed it, at least once, in one of your many replies.

      • Bing Bong
        April 15, 2012, 1:15 pm

        So you’re not claiming that he repeats the sentence as ‘We must expel..’ in the Hebrew original of the letter to Amos?

        “You’re obviously not interested in the other evidence that we’ve provided”

        I said that I wasn’t interested a long time ago.

        “Rather than widen the debate to encompass whatever historical event (and accompanying anti-Zionist interpretation) you decide is relevant, why can’t you or JPS explain how incongruous the defaced original is within the paragraph within the letter? ”

        Whatever evidence you provide (and I really didn’t ask you for it, you provided it to try and prove that he wrote in the letter “We must expel…” just like JPS tried to prove that is the phrase he used) it doesn’t change what he wrote in the original, it doesn’t change the context within the letter, it doesn’t change how nonsensical it becomes, it doesn’t change that he puts himself in a negative light and it doesn’t change JPS’s falsification of the phrase translated from of a transcription and not the original as they claim. Your evidence doesn’t change that he wrote any of the following in the letter does it?

        “At that point I am confident that we would not fail in settling
        in the remaining parts of the country, through agreement and understanding with
        our Arab neighbors, or through some other means.”

        “it will be possible for the Arabs to benefit enormously from the Jews, not only materially but politically as well.”

        “once we are numerous and powerful in the country the Arabs will realize that it is better for them to become our allies.”

        “They will derive benefits from our assistance if they, of their own free will, give us
        the opportunity to settle in all parts of the country.”

        “But the Jews could be equal allies, real friends, not occupiers or tyrants over them.”

        “All of our ambitions are built on the assumption that has proven true throughout all of our activities in the land — that there is enough room for us and for the Arabs in the land [of Israel].”

        So what alchemistic properties would change the phrase to “We must expel”?

        Please stop citing irrelavant evidence that doesn’t change the original Hebrew letter to say what you want it to say. You sound like a hostage to dogma by clinging onto one of the most popular misquoted pieces of ‘evidence’ rather than someone well read and familiar with the subject. Continuing to believe he wrote “We must expel” only brings the other evidence into question along with your objectivity.

  30. Hostage
    April 16, 2012, 9:16 am

    So you’re not claiming that he repeats the sentence as ‘We must expel..’ in the Hebrew original of the letter to Amos?

    Unlike your comments, mine have employed verbatim quotes from Efraim Karsh, Benny Morris, and others which describe the exact contents of the letter and the nature of the errata.

    “Rather than widen the debate to encompass whatever historical event (and accompanying anti-Zionist interpretation) you decide is relevant, why can’t you or JPS explain how incongruous the defaced original is within the paragraph within the letter? ”

    Okay I’ll respond to you one last time in detail. You’re obviously not familiar with the books and articles that CAMERA is discussing, because these other sources are discussed at length by the Zionist authors themselves. So, the problem with your thesis is: I’m not “widening” the scope of the existing debate or employing Anti-Zionist interpretations. I’ve been citing Zionist sources and interpretations almost exclusively and quoting them verbatim.

    FYI, an Israeli Zionist, Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons, published a photo of the letter to Amos and noted several of the published versions which altered or omitted the sentence in question. He obviously doesn’t find the statement “We must expel the Arabs and take their place” to be “incongruous” or “nonsensical”. So let’s drop the nonsense about “Anti-Zionist” interpretations. See pdf page 9 of 12. link to chaimsimons.net

    CAMERA noted that Pappe’s original citations included several other sources and Morris wrote a “Letter to the Editor” which admitted that the first part of Pappe’s quote, which said “the Arabs must go”, should be considered authentic. There had been no quotation marks around the remainder of the sentence in Pappe’s original, since he was summarizing the contents of multiple sources. The only new thing that this letter to Amos reveals, which wasn’t already a matter of public knowledge, is Ben Gurion’s plan to use the military in the event that the Arabs refused to allow Jewish settlement in their states after the partition had been implemented. None of the sentences which mention building-up the armed forces for use in colonizing Arab Palestine or Transjordan are “damaged” or disputed in either CAMERA article.

    Efraim Karsh already cited the minutes of the Jewish Agency discussions and diary entries about compulsory transfer in the footnotes of his book,, Fabricating Jewish History. So those sources need to be considered. Karsh claimed that, absent the opportunity presented by the British proposal, the subject of forced transfer would have never come up. Unlike orthodox historians, he simply offers a personal testimonial on that important point, and ignores all of the historical evidence that says otherwise. See page 42: link to books.google.com

    Other Zionists, like Shlomo Ben Ami, an Oxford-trained historian with a PhD in history disagree with Karsh – and they support their claims with evidence. For example, Ben Ami cited Ben Gurion’s statements to members of the People’s Council. Ben Gurion explained that his acceptance of the principle of partition was an attempt to gain time until the Jews were strong enough to fight the Arab majority. Ben Ami also notes that for all practical purposes Ben Gurion accepted Jabotinsky’s Iron Wall doctrine for the colonization of Eretz Israel through military might.
    *http://books.google.com/books?id=KZ6gkiJLR4wC&lpg=PA1&dq=&pg=PT49#v=onepage&q&f=false
    * link to books.google.com

    In fact, the idea of forced transfer had been part of Zionist strategy from the very beginning of the movement. The principle was incorporated in Herzl’s draft Charter for the Jewish-Ottoman Land Company (JOLC). link to jstor.org

    The day the Peel plan was released, Ben Gurion wrote an editorial in which he expressed involuntary acquiescence with the British-imposed plan of partition on a strictly temporary basis. He characterized the Palestinians as being a mere fraction of the “Arab race” that had more land at its disposal than the whole of Western Europe. He repeated the now familiar hasbara about the desire of the Jews to promote friendly relations and not wanting to dominate the Arab race. He described Palestinian efforts during the war as non-existent, and said the Jews were the country’s “rightful inheritors”. He claimed the Jewish return was not prejudicial to the Arab race as a whole, and said the Commission report (which proposed forced transfer for Palestinian Arabs and resettlement elsewhere) provided ample proof that it would not harm Palestinians individually. His bottom line on the partition proposal was that it was something the British had the power to impose on the Jewish people:

    The Jewish people have always regarded, and will continue to regard Palestine as a whole, as a single country which is theirs in a national sense and will become theirs once again. No Jew will accept partition as a just and rightful solution. . . . The proposal of the Royal Commission to set up a Jewish State in a restricted area is to put a drastic limit to the possibilities of a Jewish return, and to condemn the rest of the country to stagnation and desolation. . . . Anything may be imposed on a defenceless Jewish people by the superior forces of the British Empire, just as the Jewish people had in the past to submit to the destruction of their country by the Roman legions, and in our own times, to their persecution by Nazi Germany and other countries.

    But they can never regard the proposal as something which is right and just in itself.

    –The Jews, David Ben Gurion, The Palestine Post, Thursday, July 15, 1937, Page:5, link to jpress.org.il

    In August of 1937, Ben Gurion made it clear to the members of the 20th Zionist Congress that he was not choosing between a Jewish State in Western Palestine and Jewish claims to all of Eretz Israel on both sides of the Jordan river:

    As a historian of Zionism, Gideon, you must know Ben-Gurion’s words in the 20th Zionist Congress in 1937 (this time in Zurich not in Basel): ‘If I had been faced with the question: a Jewish state in the west of the land of Israel (note the emphasis of the ‘west of the land of Israel’ meaning there is also a ‘east of the land of Israel’) in return to giving up on our historical right to the entire land of Israel I would have postponed the (establishment) of the state’. And he added (as far as I know, to applause from many of the delegates): ‘No Jew is entitled to give up the right of the Jewish nation to the land. It is not in the authority of any Jew or of any Jewish body; it is not even in the authority of the entire nation alive today to give up any part of the land’.

    — Israel Harel, Jewish Quarterly, Winter 2007, Number 208, link to jewishquarterly.org

    During the debates on the Peel partition proposal, Weizmann, Ben Gurion, and other supporters within the Zionist Executive explicitly endorsed the eventual transfer of all the Arabs from Palestine. They said that: “if the Jewish State with 300,000 Arabs, could not maintain itself, then certainly a Jewish State in the whole of Palestine with a million Arabs would also be incapable of existence.” They “defied anyone to believe that partition meant the end of Zionism; that was not the case – it meant the starting point.” — Issac Greunbaum, member of the Board of Directors of the Jewish Agency and the World Zionist Organization, The Palestine Post, August 10, 1937, Page 8, link to jpress.org.il

    Berl Katznelson called it “the best of solutions”, which he said “must come about some day”. link to books.google.com

    Ben Gurion published his diary entries indicating his full support for forced transfer of the Arab population from the Jewish state through Am Oved, the publishing house that was founded by Berl Katznelson as an organ of the Zionist Histadrut Labor Federation. link to am-oved.co.il

    Ben Gurion was working with Am Oved on “Memoirs” and “Letters to Paula and the Children” at the same time. I provided you with a citation to Yossi Katz, “Partner to Partition”, and a long verbatim quote of his translation of Ben Gurion’s Memoirs on the subjects of forced transfer and partition as it related to the formulation of the Jewish Agency’s counter-proposal. Efraim Karsh relied on the authority of the very same work by Yossi Katz for his own history on the Jewish Agency’s response to the British Commission’s proposal. So that is an authoritative Zionist interpretation. See page 132 of “Israel: Israel’s transition from community to state” and footnote 41 on page 142:
    * link to books.google.com
    * link to books.google.com

    So there is abundant evidence that the members of the Zionist Executive, including Ben Gurion planned to ignore the boundaries of partition and that they considered a Jewish State with either 300,000 or 1,000,000 Arabs non-viable.

    • proudzionist777
      April 17, 2012, 8:03 am

      Hostage.
      You never responded to my follow up comment regarding how Professor Kenneth Stein’s book Land Question in Palestine strongly disproves your ‘transfer narrative’.

      • Hostage
        April 17, 2012, 11:59 am

        Hostage. You never responded to my follow up comment regarding how Professor Kenneth Stein’s book Land Question in Palestine strongly disproves your ‘transfer narrative’.

        Nothing you wrote challenged the fact that the Zionists had a public policy in place of using only Hebrew labor, and of expelling the Arabs and taking their place in the areas they purchased for the establishment of their “national home”.

        You simply offered the non-argument that the Zionists employed Arab landowners to do their dirty work as a precondition of their land purchase agreements. You also claimed that the British authorities resettled the displaced Arab cultivators elsewhere. That’s still a graphic example of forced eviction and transfer as a result of foreign occupation and colonization, i.e. Zionist immigrants displaced the tenured Arab cultivators and took their place.

        Every such purchase resulted in more land that became permanently unavailable for the use of the indigenous non-Jewish population.

        Hostage said: “..expelling the Arabs and taking their place in the areas they purchased for the establishment of their “national home”.

        But Stein concluded that, “The seed for eventual partition of Palestine had been planted. H.M.G.’s purpose was clear: resettle landless Palestinian Arabs away from existing Jewish settlements to avoid armed communal conflict”. Stein, page 138.

        Partition and forced eviction and transfer are two different things. The British were obliged to respect the existing rights enjoyed by Arab cultivators under the Ottoman Land Code in accordance with the terms of the San Remo resolution and the LoN mandate.

        FYI, the UN partition plan contained an entire chapter which protected the residency and personal property rights of the minority populations of both states. The UN subsequently outlawed the practice you are discussing of creating segregated ethnic enclaves. They called them “Bantustans” and explained that creating them was a flagrant violation of the UN Charter and a crime against humanity. See for example Security Council resolution 264. link to un.org

      • proudzionist777
        April 18, 2012, 6:08 pm

        “Nothing you wrote challenged the fact that the Zionists had a public policy in place of using only Hebrew labor, and of expelling the Arabs and taking their place in the areas they purchased for the establishment of their “national home”.”

        Wrong.
        Capitalist Zionists like the Jewish landowners in the citrus industry I mentioned employed Arabs (because Arab would work for lower wages than Jews). Anti-capitalist, Labor Zionists believed in ‘Jewish power through Jewish labor’,i.e. self-reliance, and would not hire Arabs.
        Labor Zionism was developed by two Eastern European Zionists, Borochov and Syrkin.

        Borochov’s views on the Arab question formed the basis of socialist Zionist ideology, and refute the charges that Zionists planned to expel the Arabs of Palestine. In his last recorded speech, Borochov said:

        “Many point out the obstacles which we encounter in our colonization work. Some say that he Turkish law hinders our work, others contend that Palestine is insignificantly small, and still others charge us with the odious crime of wishing to oppress and expel the Arabs from Palestine…When the waste lands are prepared for colonization, when modern technique is introduced, and when the other obstacles are removed, there will be sufficient land to accommodate both the Jews and the Arabs. Normal relations between the Jews and Arabs will and must prevail.”–(Eretz Yisrael in our Program and Tactics – Kiev, September 1917)

        Syrkin was vague on the issue of transfer. His only statement on the subject was that he favored, ‘friendly population transfers in mixed areas’ [of Palestine].

      • proudzionist777
        April 18, 2012, 6:25 pm

        Hostage said that, “..Zionist immigrants displaced the tenured Arab cultivators and took their place.”

        Hostage also said that, “.. The British were obliged to respect the existing rights enjoyed by Arab cultivators under the Ottoman Land Code in accordance with the terms of the San Remo resolution and the LoN mandate.”

        Tenured? Says who?
        What rights did tenant farmers have under the Ottoman Land Code and how and when did HMG or the Zionists violate these ‘rights’?

        BTW. I’d said earlier that, “In the early 1930′s, Arab land sales and Jewish land purchase contributed to the evolution of an Arab landless class. But the principle factor influencing Arab landlessness was the fellaheen’s deteriorating economic condition.”
        And I said as well that, ” ..Arab merchants, moneylenders, landlords, and other professional who had liens on a segment of village population forced many to sell to them. In turn, the sales were made to Jewish purchasers.”Stein, page 142.”

        Lo and behold, Hostage. No comment from you regarding these cites to Stein.

      • Hostage
        April 19, 2012, 10:21 am

        Lo and behold, Hostage. No comment from you regarding these cites to Stein.

        Of course not. Stein himself spells-out that Zionists got rid of Arab cultivators as a precondition to their purchase agreements and that they pressured the government to prevent them from being resettled in Jewish districts. The non-mitigating factors that you mention do not alter the fact that Zionists deliberately caused the territorial displacement of the Arab cultivators and employed Hebrew laborers to take their place.

        Tenured? Says who?

        The Ottoman Land Code of 1858. For example, Under article 78 a farmer, or group of farmers, who cultivated miri land for 10 years without objection by the state acquired ownership rights in all of it. Those rights were accidentally altered and impaired by new British land laws adopted by Herbert Samuel starting in 1920. That fact was subsequently affirmed by the Courts of Palestine and the British Commissions that looked into the matter.

        The Ottoman Land Code of 1858 recognized usufruct, ownership, and the right of cultivation as separate property rights. The right to cultivate the land and obtain a share of its production was also a right that could be passed-on to a persons’ descendants. Here are a number of works that deal with that subject:
        *Gad G. Gilbar, Ottoman Palestine, 1800-1914: Studies in Economic and Social History, pages 105-108. Brill Archive, 1990, link to books.google.com
        *Warwick P. N. Tyler, State lands and rural development in mandatory Palestine, 1920-1948, Sussex Academic Press, 2001, starting at page 21: “The State Lands of Palestine” link to books.google.com
        *Sahar Huneidi, A Broken Trust: Herbert Samuel, Zionism and the Palestinians 1920-1925, I.B.Tauris, Apr 7, 2001, pages 212-223.
        *Gershon Shafir, Land, Labor and the Origins of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict 1882-1914, Cambridge Middle East Library, 1989
        *Barbara J. Smith, The Roots of Separatism in Palestine: British Economic Policy, 1920-1929 (Contemporary Issues in the Middle East), Syracuse Univ., 1993.

        BTW. I’d said earlier that, “In the early 1930′s, Arab land sales and Jewish land purchase contributed to the evolution of an Arab landless class. But the principle factor influencing Arab landlessness was the fellaheen’s deteriorating economic condition.”

        So? Why don’t you mention the role played by the Zionists and their British supporters in worsening the economic condition of the Arabs and the fellaheen? Their historical regional markets were disrupted by the partition of Ottoman Asia and increased local competition from imports that resulted from the LoN “Policy of the Open Door”. At the same time, their products and lands were being taxed to support new British public works projects that employed unskilled Jewish immigrant laborers in jobs that would otherwise have gone to the indigenous population. The British granted exclusive long-term concessions, banking charters, and many other key economic privileges to the Zionists. For example, the Zionists had complained that the Arabs were obtaining agricultural loans for seed from banks in Egypt. At their insistence, those foreign loans were prohibited by the government and the cultivators were required to do business with Palestinian banks, including the Zionist’s chartered Colonial Trust Bank, on much less favorable terms. In addition to the works above, you can read more about that in:
        *Thomas G. August, The Selling of the Empire: British and French Imperialist Propaganda, 1890-1940, Greenwood Press, 1985
        *Caroline Elkins, Susan Pedersen, Settler Colonialism in the Twentieth Century: Projects, Practices, Legacies, Routledge, 2005.

        And I said as well that, ” ..Arab merchants, moneylenders, landlords, and other professional who had liens on a segment of village population forced many to sell to them. In turn, the sales were made to Jewish purchasers.”Stein, page 142.”

        So? It was a much more common practice for wealthy absentee landowners and local mukhtars to collectively register large tracts of village lands in their own names, when in fact they were cultivated by many other individuals who had legally secured interests and tenured property rights in the tracts. The 1839 Ottoman Gülhane edict had curtailed the right of the Sultan and tax farmers to confiscate land. Classical Ottoman land-tenure legislation made a fundamental distinction between the right to cultivate land (tasarruf) and the absolute ownership of land (raqaba). See Gershon Shafir (above) and the Gale Encyclopedia of the Mideast & N. Africa articles on: “Land Code of 1858″ and “Tanzimat”.

      • Hostage
        April 19, 2012, 11:27 am

        Wrong. Capitalist Zionists like the Jewish landowners in the citrus industry I mentioned employed Arabs

        Jewish labor policy was part of a general policy of social and economic separation that was adopted by Dr. Weizmann and the leadership of the new Yishuv. Simha Flapan noted that the paradoxical use of Arab labor in a few agricultural citrus colonies was simply due to a shortage of Jews in rural areas, the economic boom in towns, and higher wages in construction. Those colonies were the target of formal campaigns that appealed to new immigrants and existing workers on the basis of Zionist ideals and national interests to renounce the higher standard of living and wages available elsewhere to rescue Jewish agriculture. Nonetheless, by 1930 the Hope Simpson Report blamed the Jewish labor policy for the serious unemployment in the Arab sector. See Zionism and the Palestinians, Croom Helm, 1979, page 205.

        Ben Gurion’s biographers write that in 1920, he and the other Labor Socialist party leaders started to call for 100% Jewish labor in the entire economy of the Yishuv, and labor Zionism started striving for an absolute segregation of the Jewish and Arab national communities. They insisted that Jews and Arabs must live in separate settlements and work in separate economies. Their 1919 party platform called for a Jewish Socialist Republic in all of Palestine, and demanded “the transfer of Palestine’s land, water, and natural resources to the people of Israel as their eternal possession.” Shabtai Teveth wrote that economic, social, and geographical partition (i.e. de facto apartheid and Bantustanization) were inherent in Ben Gurion’s conception of Zionism. See pages 10-12, 43-44, 66, 99, and 179-184 of Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.

        Borochov’s views on the Arab question formed the basis of socialist Zionist ideology

        Nonsense. Borochov was only employed to reconcile Marxism with Jewish nationalism. He was both dead and buried before Poale Zion in Palestine formally conjoined the ideologies of “conquest of labor” (Kibbush Ha’avoda) with Avoda Ivrit (“Hebrew labor”) in a campaign that called for a separate Jewish economy and 100% use of Jewish labor.

      • proudzionist777
        April 19, 2012, 2:05 pm

        “Nonetheless, by 1930 the Hope Simpson Report blamed the Jewish labor policy for the serious unemployment in the Arab sector”

        Here is the Hope Simpson Report on the subject of immigration and unemployment. It makes Simcha Flapan appear quite foolish in his assertions. Didn’t you read Hope Simpson yourself?

        Immigration and Unemployment.—It is widely believed and commonly alleged among the Arabs that unemployment among them is due to Jewish immigration and the competition of Jewish labour. In so far as Jewish labour is employed on works which are being carried out solely with imported Jewish capital, there is no basis for the belief. It is however impossible to ascertain whether labour has been imported in excess of what is necessary for these purposes. Indeed from the fact of the increased employment of Jewish Labour on other enterprises, as for instance in the Public Works Department, on the railways, in building enterprises such as Hotel, Y.M.C.A. buildings and other edifices not paid for by purely Jewish capital, it might be argued that more Jewish labourers have been imported than are necessary for purely Jewish requirements, and that, to this extent, the Arab labour market has been adversely affected by Jewish immigration. On the other hand, there is no doubt that the development which has followed on Jewish immigration during the last nine years, has provided additional openings for Arab labour. The expansion of the orange trade alone requires the services of a large number of Arab porters and boatmen at the ports. The same may be said of the large imports of machinery and material in connection with the Jordan Concession, with the Dead Sea Concession, and with the construction and working of the ” Nesher ” Cement Company. All of these have provided a certain amount of work for Arabs, chiefly on the heavier and more menial tasks. In many directions Jewish development has meant more work for the Arabs, and it is a fair conclusion that the competition of imported Jewish labour is equalized by those increased opportunities.

        Hope Simpson Report at 8008 • B 2

      • Hostage
        April 19, 2012, 7:09 pm

        Here is the Hope Simpson Report on the subject of immigration and unemployment. It makes Simcha Flapan appear quite foolish in his assertions.

        It’s hard to see how that’s possible, since he was citing and quoting the analysis of an Israel prize winning Zionist historian, Anita Shapiro, from her doctoral dissertation: The Futile Struggle: The Jewish Labor Controversy 1929-1939 (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuhad, 1977) pages 25-213.

        I notice that you failed to mention the portions of the report which addressed the fact that 29.4 percent of the families of Arab villages were landless; the shortage of land not already in the hands of Jews that could be immediately put into cultivation to feed the existing population; and the crisis in the non-agricultural labor sector generated in 1926 by excess Jewish immigration. The report noted that crisis required emergency public relief efforts from the already distressed non-Jewish sectors of the local economy.
        link to unispal.un.org

        In other words:

        a) Where was all that foreign Jewish capital in 1926, when it was really needed?
        b) Why absorb foreign Jewish labor when one third of the rural Arab population is landless and relies on “the Public Works Department, on the railways, in building enterprises such as Hotel, Y.M.C.A. buildings and other edifices not paid for by purely Jewish capital”?

        Here are some of the other relevant historical facts that you’ve overlooked:
        a) The Colonial Secretary, Lord Passfield, reacted to the report by coming out against considering the absorptive capacity of the Jewish sector and Jewish capital alone as the criteria for immigration.
        b) The High Commissioner Walter Wauchope came out in opposition to the principle of Jewish labor and rejected Dr. Ruppin’s suggestion that existing Arab labor in the Jewish sector could be reduced and treated as potential absorptive capacity.
        c) I provided you with several sources that address British colonial propaganda and pointed out that the government and Zionists had even cut-off cheap sources of foreign capital used by Arab enterprises. The notion that Arabs shouldn’t have complained about discriminatory labor practices in their own country because the costs of their subjugation and displacement were paid for by foreign Jewish capital is an example of nonsensical propaganda.

      • proudzionist777
        April 19, 2012, 8:00 pm

        “For example, the Zionists had complained that the Arabs were obtaining agricultural loans for seed from banks in Egypt. At their insistence, those foreign loans were prohibited by the government and the cultivators were required to do business with Palestinian banks, including the Zionist’s chartered Colonial Trust Bank, on much less favorable terms.”

        Not according to Stein.
        “Weizman and the Zionist Commission were not opposed to loans to the fellahin”.
        Yes, the Zionists initially opposed the Anglo-Egypt Bank loans to the fellahin but that was because they feared that defaulting mortgages would be sold to banks or syndicates and not to the Zionists. After a short delay Weizman consented to the ‘seed loans’ to the fellahin.

        “The loans were discontinued in 1924 primarily because of the inability of the fellaheen population to recover fully from the grave economic disruptions that occurred prior to and during World War I”.

        “Agricultural loans were discontinued because more than half of the loans were not repaid”. Stein, Land Question. Page 40-43.

        Also. A large number of these ‘seed loans’ were used to pay off the Arab moneylenders. Land Question, page 19.

        So much for blaming the Zionists.

      • proudzionist777
        April 19, 2012, 8:10 pm

        What does miri lands have to do with Zionist land purchases? Miri lands were Ottoman State property not private lands.

      • proudzionist777
        April 19, 2012, 9:16 pm

        “I notice that you failed to mention the portions of the report which addressed the fact that 29.4 percent of the families of Arab villages were landless..”

        Ha!
        Says Stein,” Hope Simpson used statistical evidence, but its accuracy was very questionable”.”..Hope Simpson did some dubious extrapolation”.

        “Hope Simpson conveniently chose figures to fit his philosophy.”
        “Clearly , he wanted to ascribe to Jewish land purchase and settlement the responsibility for the creation of a landless rural Arab class.”
        “He mistakenly or deliberately assumed that it was not customary practice in Palestine to have laborers work without owning land.”

        Stein, Land Question. pp 108-111.

      • Hostage
        April 19, 2012, 9:38 pm

        What does miri lands have to do with Zionist land purchases? Miri lands were Ottoman State property not private lands.

        You might try reading the references that I cited instead of asking rhetorical questions. The mandate required the British government to facilitate close Jewish settlement on – wait for it – “state land” and waste land. The British Land Commission soon discovered that there was no excess state land that had not already been cultivated for 10 years by fellaheen.

        Here’s a bit of the Hope Simpson report that mentions the shortage of suitable land:

        It has also been shown that, while an area of at least 130 dunams is required to maintain a fellah family in a decent standard of life in the unirrigated tracts, the whole of the cultivable land not already in the hands of the Jews would not afford an average lot in excess of 90 dunams, were it divided among the existing Arab cultivators. (Chapter III.) For an average holding of 130 dunams, about eight million dunams of cultivable land would be required. It also appears that of the 86,980 rural Arab families in the villages, 29.4 per cent, are landless.

        So there wasn’t even enough land for the existing population in 1930 to pursue subsistence farming as a viable livelihood, while jobs in the Public Works Department, railroads, hotels, and etc. not paid for by purely Jewish capital were mostly filled by Jewish immigrants. Now add-in Jewish land purchases to compound the problem.

      • Hostage
        April 20, 2012, 6:00 am

        Not according to Stein. “Weizman and the Zionist Commission were not opposed to loans to the fellahin”. Yes, the Zionists initially opposed the Anglo-Egypt Bank loans to the fellahin but that was because they feared that defaulting mortgages would be sold to banks or syndicates and not to the Zionists.

        You’re the one making that bizarre argument, not Stein. Nothing you’ve quoted from Stein exonerates the Zionists.

        FYI, it wasn’t just the Anglo-Egyptian Bank. Even if it had been, please explain why third-parties with no legitimate fiduciary interest, including foreign Jewish colonial companies, should have had a say in who supplied the capital for the mortgages or in how the proceeds were spent. The Zionists only possible interests were in making windfall profits for themselves off the loans; obtaining ownership of the land more cheaply in cases of default; and in forcing the fellaheen into financial circumstances where they were much more likey to sell their land.

        So much for blaming the Zionists.

        So much for your grasp of the mortgage business and moral risk.

      • Hostage
        April 20, 2012, 7:16 am

        Ha! Says Stein,

        First you pretend that Simha Flapan or Anita Shapira look foolish and that they misread the Hope Simpson report. But they were accurately summarizing its contents and its subsequent effects on land purchase and immigration policies and statutes.

        “He mistakenly or deliberately assumed that it was not customary practice in Palestine to have laborers work without owning land.”

        The other authorities that I cited above point out that Hope Simpson was doing his job and warning about a “worst case” scenario, not engaging in “academic questions”. Hope Simpson said as much in the report itself. In any event, Stein constantly talks about inadequate British measures to improve the rural economy, but doesn’t highlight the fact that the rural population was competing for relief assistance with foreign Jewish immigrants that were arriving in the country. Regardless of the issue of land ownership, there simply wasn’t enough cultivatable land to sustain the rural population that was working it. So they were dependent on imports, like the wheat that was being “dumped” in Palestine, and employment in the non-agricultural sectors to earn the money to pay for it.

        In 1926, there had been an excess of Jewish immigrants who could not find work. Hope Simpson noted:

        Danger of unemployment. It would be a bad, and might prove a fatal policy, to attract large capital in order to start doubtful industries in Palestine, with the object of justifying an increase in the number of immigrants. The Memorandum spends much effort in an attempt to establish that the year of ” so called ” crisis in 1926 was not in fact a year of crisis at all. It is a question, somewhat academic, of the meaning to be attached to the word “crisis “. In that year the provision of relief works for the Jewish immigrants who could not otherwise obtain a living was actually necessary. Whether or not that should be designated a crisis is immaterial. It was an episode of which no Government would willingly contemplate the recurrence. The importation of large numbers of immigrants to be employed on new industries of extensive character whose economic success is quite problematical, might well cause a crisis compared with which the ” so called ” crisis of 1926 would indeed seem unimportant.

        So in the best case scenario, revenues from agricultural taxes, which could have been used to improve the lot of the rural taxpayers, was spent on relief efforts for Jewish immigrants who exceeded the absorptive capacity of the economy. You cited a portion of the 1930 report which noted that they were still disproportionately represented in the Department of Public Works, & etc.

      • proudzionist777
        April 21, 2012, 10:28 am

        “The other authorities that I cited above point out that Hope Simpson was doing his job and warning about a “worst case” scenario, not engaging in “academic questions”.

        According to Stein, Hope Simpson was an ambitious political hack (p. 93) who wasn’t above cooking the books( p.105-106) to further the Colonial Office’s anti-Zionist agenda (p. 93). Hope Simpson seems to have been an anti-Semite as well (p. 104-105).

      • proudzionist777
        April 21, 2012, 10:34 am

        “The mandate required the British government to facilitate close Jewish settlement on – wait for it – “state land” and waste land. ”

        Okay, and Hope Simpson and Passfield determined that there were no miri lands to give to the Zionists, which begs the question. How many Arabs were dispossessed of miri lands by HMG on behalf of the Zionists?

      • proudzionist777
        April 21, 2012, 11:18 am

        Hostage says:

        “The British granted exclusive long-term concessions, banking charters, and many other key economic privileges to the Zionists. ”

        Sure they did. But why? Because H.M.G. believed, for better or worse, that Zionism served the economic well being of the Arab Community.

        And I quote your cite above, “As long as it was assumed that the [Zionist] settler movement brought unequivocal gains to the local population, the problem of a dual obligation would virtually be dismissed; the welfare of non-Jewish population was assured, it could be argued, simply by facilitating the establishment of the Jewish National Home.” (p7). –Barbara J. Smith, The Roots of Separatism in Palestine: British Economic Policy, 1920-1929

        I’d assumed you’d have read that.

        And BTW. Was HMG wrong in that believing that Zionism helped the local Arabs? Didn’t Palestine undergo an economic ‘boomlet’ in the mid 1930’s while the rest of the world suffered with the Great Depression?

      • Annie Robbins
        April 21, 2012, 11:32 am

        the welfare of non-Jewish population was assured, it could be argued, simply by facilitating the establishment of the Jewish National Home.

        i supposed anything could be argued.

      • proudzionist777
        April 21, 2012, 11:53 am

        “i supposed anything could be argued”

        “The [Palestinian] Arab record of economic growth…was very impressive indeed, even if it was overshadowed by the extraordinary economic performance of the Jews.”– The Divided Economy of Mandatory Palestine By Jacob Metzer (Cambridge University Press) Pg. 17.

        Annie. I suppose you’re right.

      • Hostage
        April 21, 2012, 1:45 pm

        Because H.M.G. believed, for better or worse, that Zionism served the economic well being of the Arab Community.

        In fact the declassified documents in the UK archives establish that British government officials, like Balfour, Curzon, Devonshire, Ormsby-Gore, and Passfield, knew all along that support and preferential treatment for the Zionists was contrary to the well being of the non-Jewish communities. Entire volumes have been devoted to those archival sources, e.g. Doreen Ingrams, Palestine Papers 1917-1922: Seeds of Conflict, George Brazziler, 1972. Barabara Smith cites and quotes many contemporary public and government sources in the Chapter on Jewish monopoly enterprises, starting on page 116.

        And I quote your cite above, . . . Barbara J. Smith, The Roots of Separatism in Palestine: British Economic Policy, 1920-1929

        You are wasting your time and mischaracterizing the author’s views on subject. Smith devoted an entire chapter to the granting of monopoly rights to Jewish enterprises. She described those concessions as “symbols of Zionist aggression” on the national level. The monopolies granted to the Zionists in 1921 actually delayed public works that had already been planned and requested by Arab municipalities. For example, she noted that the city of Jaffa had requested a concession to use the Auja River for electric lighting in 1920, but had been turned down (page 121). Like several of the sources I cited above, she also noted that the British and Zionists used subterfuges and propaganda to conceal the fact that the concessions were Jewish nationalist projects. Here is an example of her views on the subject:

        Zionist aims and Rutenberg’s commitment to them precluded his concession’s becoming a showpiece of Jewish enterprise undertaken in the interests of the entire Palestinian population. With hindsight, it is easy to be critical of British gullibility. Rutenberg reported to the British press: “My whole conception of the undertaking is that of a public utility independent of race. We are not interested in politics. We shall cooperate with both Jews and Arabs. . . . Both Jewish and Arab labour will be employed in the construction and working of the power-houses. I am trying to obtain the services of an Arab engineer to supervise the operating of the power-houses.”14

        Sentiments echoing the Rutenberg line were being aired officially in London.15 Rutenberg refrained from waving the Zionist banner in public, and British officials in Palestine regarded him simply as an eccentric obsessed with water power. It is curious, however, that members of the Colonial Office did not clearly appreciate the nationalistic nature of the concession. Rutenberg forwarded a report during 1921 stating: “Palestine will be Jewish only if the entire work relative to the building up of Jewish life will be carried out by Jewish workers . . . the rebuilding of Palestine by Arab labour would result in the creation of an Arab and not a Jewish Palestine, irrespective of the amount of Jewish capital drawn in.” 16 Privately in Zionist circles it was conceded that to stem the tide of Arab opposition, “some” Arabs should be employed and others should be bought off “possibly by backsheesh.” 17

        The extent of the subterfuge can be seen clearly in Rutenberg’s negotiations with the Brandeis-Mack group in America, from whom he hoped to receive generous financial backing. He told Judge Mack that he never intended to cede his rights to any company or institution “but the Jewish People.” To avoid the possibility of control passing out of Jewish hands, he outlined a plan whereby a holding company would be formed, with membership limited to institutions of a Jewish national character, which would retain most of the rights of the concession, while a subsidiary company would be formed with membership open to the public, although at least 40 percent of the shares would be retained by the holding company. “For political reasons, the subsidiary Company only is to figure publicly, the Holding Company always keeping in the background.” — page 120

        link to books.google.com

        i supposed anything could be argued.

        The economics of colonialism and government-franchised monopolies are pretty well known. So is the fact that excess profits from the Zionist charters and concessions were not employed to benefit the Palestinian population.

      • mig
        April 21, 2012, 1:54 pm

        proudzio :

        Sure they did. But why? Because H.M.G. believed, for better or worse, that Zionism served the economic well being of the Arab Community.

        Excuse moi ? Arab community was getting some positive benefits from NON-zionist parts from jewish community. Thing was different from zionist part. Example zionists managed to get pass rejection to use arab workers.

        And BTW. Was HMG wrong in that believing that Zionism helped the local Arabs?

        Because they didnt.

      • Hostage
        April 21, 2012, 2:20 pm

        Okay, and Hope Simpson and Passfield determined that there were no miri lands to give to the Zionists, which begs the question. How many Arabs were dispossessed of miri lands by HMG on behalf of the Zionists?

        No it begs the question of how much former miri land was registered privately to absentee landlords and local mukhtars and sold to Zionists, in spite of the fact that it was cultivated by others with a secured legal interest in the property.

      • mig
        April 21, 2012, 2:50 pm

        48. Dealing next with the social economic problems surveyed by Sir John Hope-Simpson, the statement endorsed the latter’s conclusion that
        “at the present time and with the present methods of Arab cultivation there remains no margin of land available for agricultural settlement by new immigrants, with the exception of such undeveloped land as the various Jewish agencies hold in reserve.”

        It also cited Sir John Hope-Simpson’s calculation that, if the whole cultivable area of the country were divided among the existing Arab cultivators, it would not provide them with an average holding sufficient to maintain a decent standard of life. In these circumstances, the duty of ensuring that the “rights and position” of the Arabs were not prejudiced could be reconciled with the duty of encouraging Jewish settlement only by means of methodical agricultural development.”
        “Only by a the adoption of such a policy will additional Jewish agricultural settlement be possible consistently with the conditions laid down in Article 6 of the Mandate. The result desired will not be obtained except by years of work. It is for this reason fortunate that the Jewish organisations are in possession of a large reserve of land not yet settled or developed. Their operations can continue without break, while more general steps of development, in the benefits of which Jews and Arabs can both share, are being worked out. During this period, however, the control of all disposition of land must of necessity rest with the authority in charge of the development. Transfers of land will be permitted only in so far as they do not interfere with the plans of that authority.”

        link to unispal.un.org

      • Hostage
        April 21, 2012, 4:40 pm

        According to Stein, Hope Simpson was an ambitious political hack

        Stein simply said that Hope Simpson wanted to be the next High Commissioner for Palestine. He didn’t characterize him as a “political hack”. link to books.google.com

        Hope Simpson seems to have been an anti-Semite as well (p. 104-105).

        Stein doesn’t say that Hope Simpson was an anti-Semite. An anti-Semite is someone who harbors dislike or hatred of persons based solely upon their Jewish descent. Stein explained that Hope Simpsons sympathies lay with the fellaheen and not with their Zionist adversaries. In a letter accompanying his completed report on Palestine, he stated: “All British officials tend to become pro-Arab, or, perhaps more accurately anti-Jew…. Personally, I can quite well understand this trait. The helplessness of the fellah appeals to the British official with whom he comes in touch. The offensive self-assertion of the Jewish immigrant is, on the other hand, repellant.” His observation was based upon the offensive behavior of the Zionist immigrants, not upon their descendancy.

        I’ve already pointed-out that the 1919 charter of Ben Gurion’s political party, Ahdut Ha’avodah, called for the establishment of a Jewish Socialist Republic in all of Palestine and demanded “the transfer of Palestine’s land, water, and natural resources to the people of Israel as their eternal possession.” See Ben Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs, Shabtai Teveth, page 99. A person doesn’t have to be an anti-Semite to be offended by that level arrogance on the part of the Jewish immigrants in the Labor-Socialist movement.

        FYI, Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban described Israel’s desire for Arab territory, devoid of its Arab residents as a “security psychosis”. Hope Simpson similarly characterized the Zionist desire for land devoid of its Arab cultivators as “the prophylactic of the Jewish disease”. In short, he disliked rude and offensive Zionist immigrants who mistreated the indigenous fellaheen in order to dispossess them from their lands and livelihood.

        For example, Stein relates the details of the meeting between Hope Simpson and the head of the JNF, Menachem Ussishkin:

        There is no doubt that Hope Simpson’s sympathy, like Chancellor’s, rested with the Arab cultivator. Accounts of fellaheen poverty shocked him. He was dismayed by their inextricable ties to Arab moneylenders and the eventual transfer of their lands to large landowners. When he came to the Jewish National Fund headquarters in Jerusalem in the middle of June, his conversation with Ussishkin was repeatedly punctuated by his concern about the Wadi Hawarith Arabs. Hope-Simpson feared that “if the Government [had] to send troops to remove the [Wadi Hawarith] Arabs, there might be shooting and the whole world would be aroused because Arabs were killed for refusing to leave the land they had cultivated.” Ussishkin blamed Arab politicians for the difficulties at Wadi Hawarith because of their intervention on behalf of the soon-to-be-evicted eighty-five Bedouin families. (page 104)

        The Jewish Agency had used shady dealings and bid rigging to obtain the land through a public auction and they entered into a number of compromises with the government to avoid or delay the adoption of legislation that would impose stronger land sale restrictions. See “The Wadi Hawarith Affair” starting on page 76.

      • Hostage
        April 21, 2012, 5:50 pm

        Annie. I suppose you’re right.

        She certainly is. All of the sources that I cited above contend that the Zionist colonization of Palestine was, on the whole, an economic impediment to growth in the Arab economy. The source you are citing states that: there is no accurate historical database that recorded Arab economic activity in Palestine. So he is relying on his own published estimates (page xvi). He says 75 percent of the gains in the Jewish economy can be attributed to labor (immigration + natural increase) and foreign capital investment (page 17 and Ch. 5); and the mainly traditional Arab economy gained 50 percent or more from productivity increases. Those gains were attributed to exogenous factors such as the expanding World market for Palestine’s citrus products (page17).

      • proudzionist777
        April 21, 2012, 6:06 pm

        Hostage says:

        “Hope Simpson similarly characterized the Zionist desire for land devoid of its Arab cultivators as “the prophylactic of the Jewish disease”.

        To quote Stein at 104-105, “He [Hope Simpson] characterized the Jewish desire of land as the “prophylactic of the Jewish disease.”

        Did Hope Simpson say ‘land devoid of it’s Arab cultivators’ or did you?

      • Hostage
        April 21, 2012, 8:58 pm

        Did Hope Simpson say ‘land devoid of it’s Arab cultivators’ or did you?

        Yes Hope-Simpson was discussing the eviction of the 85 Bedouin families from Wadi Hawarith in footnote 75. Stein is quoting statements recorded in the minutes of the visit of Hope-Simpson to the Jewish National Fund on 17 June 1930, Central Zionist Archive, S25/4112 (footnotes (73 and 75);

        He is also summarizing the contents of two letters from Hope-Simpson on the the topics of immigration, land policy, and the principle of Hebrew Labor. One was addressed to John Chancellor, 30 June 1930, and was the cover letter for the Command Paper on the Land Inquiry, Box 16/6 (footnote 74) and the other was addressed to Lord Passfield on 18 August 1930, CAB 24/215 (footnote 76). Copies can be found in Annex II of CAB 24/215 link to nationalarchives.gov.uk

        Here is a portion of the Letter to Lord Passfield about JNF policy on Jewish Labour:

        When Jewish settlement first began in the eighties of last century, it connoted no political ambition, and the Rothschild colonies lived in peace and amity with their Arab neighbours, and were, in fact, of great assistance to them, providing them with regular employment, and assisting them to develop the Arab lands in proximity to the new Jewish Settlements. The same practice prevailed in the case of the German Colonies. Even to-day, though things are changing rapidly, and under Zionist pressure the P.I.C.A. colonies are being compelled gradually to part with their Arab workmen, the friendly spirit animating the Arab towards the old
        settlers in the P.I.C.A. colonies is in marked contrast to their keen hostility to the settlers introduced by the Zionist organization. Had the method of the P.I.C.A. continued, no political question would have arisen, and the Jews could have effected a peaceful penetration of Palestine without any opposition on the part of the Arab population. . . . So the large estate passes to the Jewish National Fund, and becomes ” the inalienable property of the Jewish people.” It will be used for the settlement of Jews on conditions which render it impossible that any but a Jew can ever hold the land in future, or can ever be employed on it as a labourer. This is, from every point of view, a most serious happening. It is undesirable from the economic point of view, for unemployment among the Arabs is already a serious problem. The political aspect of the matter is even more serious, for it confirms the Arab in the belief commonly held that Jewish policy is designed deliberately to oust the Arab from the land of Palestine. And it is impossible to affirm that this belief is unfounded. The policy of the Zionists indicates that their ultimate intention, by means of steady and consistent land purchase and settlement with the provisions noted, is to buy the country, and to buy it under conditions which will render it impossible for any Arab to earn his daily bread in the territory which they have acquired. It is a policy of the inevitability of gradualness of the most sinister kind. . . . For instance, at the moment a communal colony for workers is being constructed just outside the P.I.C.A. village of Ness Ziona. This is being done as a method of enforcing the policy of the General Federation of Jewish Labour, to exclude the Arab workmen from Jewish villages, and the workers’ colony is, in fact, a threat and a menace. This was a case which should have been known to the Government, and in which the Government should have called on the Jewish Agency to explain what it was doing. It is probable that in time there will be trouble about labour in Ness Ziona. The price of oranges is falling, and shortly it will not be possible to employ Jewish labour at the rates fixed by the General Federation and at the same time to export oranges. Yet the labourers who are being planted on the borders of Ness Ziona will demand employment, and will take steps to see that Arabs are not employed for the picking and packing of the fruit.

        Here is an extract from the draft Statement of Policy set-out in
        Appendix I. It deals with the subject of Jewish Agency Policy on the exclusive use of Jewish Labor. It reflects the government’s determination that the policy violated Article 6 of the Mandate:

        19. Moreover, the effect of Jewish colonisation on the existing population is very intimately affected by the conditions on which the various Jewish bodies hold, sell and lease their land. It is provided by the Constitution of the Enlarged Jewish Agency, signed at Geneva on the 14th August, 1929 (Article 3 (d) and (e)),
        that the land acquired shall be held as the ” inalienable property of the Jewish people,” and that in ” all the works or undertakings carried out or furthered by the Agency, it shall be deemed to be a matter of principle that Jewish labour shall be employed.” Moreover, by Article 23 of the draft lease, which it is proposed to execute in respect of all holdings granted by the Jewish National Fund, the lessee undertakes to execute all works connected with the cultivation of the holdings only with Jewish labour. Stringent conditions are imposed to ensure the observance of this undertaking.

        An undertaking binding settlers in the Colonies of the Maritime Plain to hire Jewish workmen only, whenever they may be obliged to hire help, is inserted in the Agreement for the repayment of advances made by the Palestine Foundation Fund. Similar provision is contained in the Agreement for the Emek Colonies.

        These stringent provisions are in striking contrast with the solemn declaration at the Zionist Congress of 1921 of ” the desire of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people in relations of friendship and mutual respect, and, together, with the Arab people, to develop the homeland common to both into a prosperous community which would ensure the growth of the peoples.”

        20. The Jewish leaders have been perfectly frank in their justification of this policy. The Executive of the General Federation of Jewish Labour which exercises a very important influence on the direction of Zionist policy have contended that such restrictions are necessary for the promotion of the largest possible amount of Jewish immigration and for the safeguarding
        of the standard of life of the Jewish labourer from the danger of falling to the lower standard of the Arab.

        However logical such arguments, from the point of view of the Jewish National Home, it must, nevertheless, be pointed out that they are irrelevant in view of the provisions of Article 6 of the Mandate, which expressly requires that, in facilitating Jewish immigration and close settlement by Jews on the land, the Administration of Palestine must ensure that ” the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced.”

      • proudzionist777
        April 22, 2012, 1:36 pm

        What my source said is that:

        “In the Arab community, total factor productivity may have accounted for 50 percent(and possibly more) of output growth. This suggests that the mainly traditional Arab economy was able to to gain from exogenous factors (such as the expanding world market for Palestine’s citrus, the demand and demonstration effects of the fast- growing modern Jewish economy, and government-provided economic services and infrastructure) and mobilize it resources-primarily land and labor-largely in response to these factors, so as to facilitate speedy economic growth.”

        First. The Arab economy benefited from other exogenous sources besides the citrus industry. The other exogenous sources include H.M.G. and the thriving Jewish economy of Palestine.

        Are you discounting Professor Metzer’s own published estimates?
        If so, than why?

      • mig
        April 22, 2012, 2:29 pm

        60. The total population of Palestine at the end of 1936 was approximately 1,300,000, the Jews being estimated at 384,000. The Arabs had also increased rapidly, mainly as a result of the cessation of the military conscription imposed on the country by the Ottoman Empire, the campaign against malaria and the improvement in health services generally. In absolute figures their increase more than equalled that of the Jewish population, but relatively the latter had risen from 13 per cent at the census of 1922 to nearly 30 per cent at the end of 1936.

        61. The immigration of Jews into Palestine was accompanied by an impressive important of Jewish capital, estimated at nearly P.80,000,000 by the end of 1936. This inflow of capital increased with the rising figures of immigration, and made its contribution to a striking expansion of Jewish activity in both agriculture and industry. The number of Jewish agricultural settlements rose from 96 in 1927 to 172 in 1936 and their total population from 28,000 to 87,000. The capital invested in Jewish industry rose from P.2,095,000 in 1930 to P.11,064,000 in 1937. The population of the all-Jewish city of Tel Aviv was nearing 150,000.

        62. Despite the growing extent and diversity of industry, the importance of citrus fruits in Palestine’s export trade continued to increase. The volume of citrus exports rose steadily from 2,600,000 cases in 1929-30 to 7,300,000 in 1934-35, falling in the next year to 5,900,000 but immediately resuming its rise to the peck figure of 15,300,000 in 1938-39. In the calendar year 1935, oranges, grapefruit and lemons constituted 84 per cent of Palestine’s total exports.

        63. The economic prosperity of the country during these years was reflected in the public revenue, which, as compared with an average of less than two and a half million pounds in the year 1928-31, reached a total of P.5,770,000 in the financial year 1935-36. The statistics of foreign trade were equally significant. The value of imports increased from P.7,167,000 in 1929 to P.17,853,000 in 1935 and that of exports from P.1,554,000 to P.4,215,000 in the same years.

        64. The impetus given to the country’s economic development by Jewish immigration and by the influx of Jewish capital conferred certain benefits on the Arab community. The Government was able to expand its services, in the interest of the whole population, by means of revenue drawn in an increasing proportion from the Jewish taxpayer. And the Arab cultivator benefited from the expansion of the urban market for his produce. Nor could it be shown that the purchase of land by Jews had driven any appreciable number of Arab cultivators out of agriculture.

        65. The Arabs were, nevertheless, apprehensive for their economic future. Their numbers were increasing rapidly, already there were signs of rural congestion in the hill villages, and the more fertile land in the plains, which might have been developed to absorb their excess population, was steadily passing into Jewish ownership.

        66. The two communities remained economically distinct. the lack of fusion between the indigenous Arab and oriental Jewish population on the one hand, and the Jewish immigrants from Europe on the other, was strikingly illustrated by tables of comparative daily wages officially computed in 1935, from which the following is an extract

        link to unispal.un.org

      • Hostage
        April 22, 2012, 4:19 pm

        What my source said is that:

        There is no accurate historical database that recorded Arab economic activity in Palestine. So he is relying on his own estimates (page xvi).

        Are you discounting Professor Metzer’s own published estimates?
        If so, than why?

        Of course. Whenever the estimates are not based on actual historical data, they can’t be treated as if they are known facts or given the benefit of doubt and employed as reliable evidence to make historical claims that refute eye witness accounts of Arab poverty during the Mandate era.

        First. The Arab economy benefited from other exogenous sources besides the citrus industry. The other exogenous sources include H.M.G. and the thriving Jewish economy of Palestine.

        Stein and others employ the annual reports on the citrus industry from the Mandatory’s Department of Agriculture; the 19th Century Consular reports on citrus exports; and the 20th Century report of the Survey of Palestine. There are no accurate records for the other sectors of the economy, just estimates. The notion that the country’s government should be considered an “exogenous” source of gain is somewhat doubtful. Churchill used the Cairo Conference to establish the principle that the mandates had to pay their own way. The representatives of the British government testified to the League of Nations that Palestine did not received grants-in-aid for civilian development from the British Exchequer. For example, Palestine was usually called upon to pay the excess costs of the British forces stationed there during disturbances and emergencies. “H.M.G.” included Arab bureaucrats, judges, mayors, police, & etc. who should not be counted as “external” factors, when they contributed to their own economy. There’s no reason to give Great Britain credit for all of the gains that would have occurred as a result of the march of civilization, with or without it’s interference.

        Metzger estimates that 75 percent of the gains in the Jewish sector came from labor and foreign capital inputs, but he doesn’t provide concrete examples of the “demand and demonstration effects” that supposedly “mobilized Arab land and labor”. The weight of the evidence indicates that the Jewish Agency’s adoption of the principle of Hebrew Labor resulted in net harm to the Arab economy. That leaves items like the capital “gains” input from Arab land sales to Jews and the Jewish National Fund. As Hope-Simpson pointed-out, those sorts of paper “gains” resulted in the permanent loss of the means of production to the Arab economy. Like most hasbrats, you attempt to use raw statistics or estimates of gains to gloss-over the effects of the policy of Bantustanization.

        Stein’s Land Question in Palestine presents the rising annual wheat and citrus data for the years 1929-37 and explains the fellahheen were nonetheless bankrupt (page 144) . He notes that the destitution and insolvency of the fellaheen reached such proportions in 1931-32 that one Zionist official described their economic condition as “nauseating poverty”.

      • Hostage
        April 22, 2012, 5:04 pm

        P.S. I’ve supplied you two very long quotes and a link to the declassified UK Archive documents which establish beyond any doubt that the Jewish Agency, JNF, and Palestine Foundation Fund had a documented public policy of displacing the Arab cultivators from lands that they acquired and using Hebrew Labor exclusively to take their place. They indicate that the Zionists also pressured the P.I.C.A. colonies to get rid of their Arab laborers and built Jewish-only settlements nearby that were considered a threat.

        That should dispose of the objections that you raised and claims that the Zionists didn’t have a policy of expelling the Arabs and taking their place.

      • Philip Weiss
        April 22, 2012, 5:11 pm

        thank you Hostage

      • proudzionist777
        April 23, 2012, 7:01 pm

        “In fact the declassified documents in the UK archives establish that British government officials, like Balfour, Curzon, Devonshire, Ormsby-Gore, and Passfield, knew all along that support and preferential treatment for the Zionists was contrary to the well being of the non-Jewish communities. Entire volumes have been devoted to those archival sources, e.g. Doreen Ingrams, Palestine Papers 1917-1922: Seeds of Conflict, George Brazziler, 1972.”

        I own a copy of Ingram’s book. Passfield does not appear in the book’s index, and neither Devonshire nor Ormsby-Gore says anything in the book about preferential treatment of Zionism being contrary to the well being of the non-Jewish communities.

        I suggest you tighten up your cites.

      • proudzionist777
        April 23, 2012, 7:28 pm

        If there was any chicanary involved in the sale of the Wadi Hawarith tracts, that had nothing to do with the fact that the High Court of Palestine certified the evictions as legal. The tenants had accepted compensation from the Zionist buyers ahead of their eviction but refused to vacate after a paternal High Commissioner’s office interceded on their behalf.

      • proudzionist777
        April 23, 2012, 7:43 pm

        What Stein says on pages 143- 144 is that the destitute fellaheen were driven insolvent by low wheat prices and moneylenders, described as “greedy Arab merchants who by their (fellaheen) crops”.

      • proudzionist777
        April 23, 2012, 7:51 pm

        Didn’t Hope Simpson, 1930, at p. 50, say that the majority of Jewish owned land was P.I.C.A. and that P.I.C.A. was less ideological in it’s hiring practices than the Labor Zionists?

        If that’s the case, than the majority Zionist landowner was employing Arabs.

      • Hostage
        April 24, 2012, 6:45 am

        Didn’t Hope Simpson, 1930, at p. 50, say that the majority of Jewish owned land was P.I.C.A. and that P.I.C.A. was less ideological in it’s hiring practices than the Labor Zionists?

        You can download the “Secret” Cabinet Paper which I quoted above. It explains that the P.I.C.A. colonies had good relations with Arab cultivators, but were being pressured to get rid of their Arab laborers. It also explains that the Zionists in charge of the Jewish Agency had a gradual, but inevitable program, in place that would lead to the dispossession of the Arabs.

        FYI, the P.I.C.A eventually signed-over it’s land holdings in Israel to the JNF (see Michael Fischbach, Records of Dispossession: Palestinian Refugee Property and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Columbia University Press, 2003, page 162.
        link to books.google.com

        So the clauses in JNF’s Charter regarding the use of Hebrew Labor that are cited in the Cabinet Paper became applicable to all of the colonies that had been owned by P.I.C.A.

      • proudzionist777
        April 24, 2012, 7:07 am

        My point was, that as late as 1930, the largest Zionist landowner employed Arab laborers. Right or wrong?

      • Hostage
        April 24, 2012, 7:14 am

        What Stein says on pages 143- 144

        On page 131 and 143 Stein explains that wheat was being dumped on the Palestine markets, thanks to agreements between the League of Nations mandatory governments and their policy of the “Open Door” on trade under the Palestine-Syria Customs Agreement of 1929. The problem wasn’t merely that a few Arabs were greedy, but rather that the Arabs had no democratic say in their own government’s foreign trade policy and that the fellaheen were shackled by the import policies adopted by their British masters (page 131):

        A worldwide overproduction of cereals and subsequent dumping of foreign wheat on the Palestine market generated a fall in the local price of cereals. As a result, the Arab agriculturist had difficulty in disposing of his crop. He found it almost impossible to pay his tithe to the administration and, if a tenant, difficult to pay rent to his landlord. The administration recognized this economic plight by partially remitting the tithe. Landowners and merchants who depended upon the agricultural sector for part of their income through rents suffered too, though to a lesser extent than those whose entire income relied upon agricultural production. The Arab Executive decided upon a partial Arab economic boycott to emphasize Arab self-sufficiency, that is, Arabs were to sell Jews anything except land and buy from Jews nothing but land. But despite the political intent, economic considerations forced some Arabs to continue engaging in land sales in order to maintain themselves. While there were no large Arab land sales to Jews, there was an unusual number of small landowner transfers recorded in 1931. More small landowners were parting with lesser amounts of land in an effort to meet their short term economic needs. This process of small landowner participation in land sales to Jews grew during the decade as the economic condition of the Arab rural population dramatically worsened.

      • Hostage
        April 24, 2012, 7:31 am

        If there was any chicanary involved in the sale of the Wadi Hawarith tracts, that had nothing to do with the fact that the High Court of Palestine certified the evictions as legal.

        There’s no “if” to it. Stein cites it as a matter of public record, e.g. High Commissioner Chancellor to Lord Passfield, Secretary of State for the Colonies, 1 March 1930, C0733/l9On7l82:

        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.

        link to ismi.emory.edu

        So the Court agreed that the seller could transfer 25,000 dunams for which there was no clear title and the new owners could force the tenants to accept compensation. I think you can see why the JNF agreed to further compromises during the mandate era.

      • Hostage
        April 24, 2012, 10:11 am

        I own a copy of Ingram’s book. Passfield does not appear in the book’s index, and neither Devonshire nor Ormsby-Gore says anything in the book about preferential treatment of Zionism being contrary to the well being of the non-Jewish communities. . . . I suggest you tighten up your cites.

        I didn’t provide Ingram’s book as a cite for each of the named individuals. I said for example, “e.g.” If you want cites to the declassified documents pertaining to the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence and the Special Inquiry Commission on that subject, the Council of Four minutes from the Paris Peace Conference, or Ambassador Morgenthau’s peace negotiations with Turkey just ask.

        Declassified British Cabinet Papers reveal that in 1917-18 Ormsby-Gore and Lord Curzon both advised privately that the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Balfour Declaration granted rights to France and the Jews that would violate the explicit terms on Arab autonomy or independence contained in the Regliment Organique Agreements and the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence. He also noted that the Armenians, Arabs, and Jews had claims on great Britain that had to be taken into account in the peace negotiations with Turkey. Nonetheless Colonial Secretary Ormby-Gore wrote a Policy paper on Palestine in 1937 which admitted there was no chance that the Jews, the Government of Great Britain, or the League of Nations could accept proposals to recognize the freedom and independence of the Arabs of Palestine in their own land, while “insuring at the same time all lawful rights of the minority by constitutional guarantees.” He planned to enlist foreign Arab heads of State in future negotiations to subvert the rights of the Palestinians. Compare CAB/24/143, Eastern Report, No. XVIII, 31 May, 1917 with CAB 24/272, CP 269 (37), 9 November 1937
        *http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/details-result.asp?queryType=1&resultcount=1&Edoc_Id=8041254
        *http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/details-result.asp?queryType=1&resultcount=1&Edoc_Id=8047337

        Secretary of the Colonies Devonshire authored a memo which frankly admitted that the British government was trying to re-interpret the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence to break the agreements reached between the former government and the Sharif of Mecca with regard to Palestine:

        7. It is constantly argued by critics of the Zionist policy that, whatever may have been the pledges given to the Jews, they are rendered null and void by prior promises made to the Arabs. The facts are as follows : In the course of the correspondence which preceded the Arab revolt, Sir HMcMahon, then High Commissioner in Egypt, gave an undertaking (25th October, 1915) to the Sherif of Mecca (now King Hussein of the Hejaz) that His Majesty’s Government would “recognise and support the independence of the Arabs ” within certain territorial limits. From these limits ” the districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and the portions of Syria
        “lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Hama, Homsand Aleppo” were specifically excluded. The relevant extracts from the correspondence between Sir H. McMahon and the Sherif are printed as Appendix I to this Memorandum. The question is: Did the excluded area cover Palestine or not ? The late Government maintained that it did and that the intention to exclude Palestine was clearly understood, both by His Majesty’s Government and by the Sherif, at the time that the correspondence took place. Their view is supported by the fact that in the following
        year (1916) we concluded an agreement with the French and Russian Governments under which Palestine was to receive special treatment on an international basis. The weak point in the argument is that, on the strict wording of Sir H. McMahon’s letter, the natural meaning of the phrase “west of the district of Damascus ” has to be somewhat strained in order to cover an area lying considerably to the south, as well as to the west, of the City of Damascus.
        CAB/24/159 former reference CP. 106 (23) February 1923
        link to nationalarchives.gov.uk

        Lord Halifax subsequently authored a memo which pointed out the fact that there was no land or district lying to the west of Allepo. He noted that and several other difficulties presented an insurmountable obstacle to defending the less than honest interpretation the British government had employed for more than a decade with regard to the McMahon promises. See “Palestine: Legal Arguments Likely to be Advanced by Arab Representatives”, Memorandum by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, January 1939, UK National Archives, CAB 24/282, CP 19 (39)
        link to nationalarchives.gov.uk

        The declassified Passfield report on the Situation in Palestine, 1929 revealed that the British government had no intention of honoring its commitments to the Arab majority. It also explained that the obligation to foreign Jews with regard to immigration and settlement could only be fulfilled if the High Commissioner were given a military force of sufficient size and collective punishments were carried-out to keep the indigenous Arab population in check. See CAB 24/207, CP 343 (29), 28 November 1929, link to nationalarchives.gov.uk

        I’d suggest you stop commenting on dead threads. There’s no shortage of reliable published sources that can be used to establish, beyond any doubt, that there were British and Zionist policies in place to employ a brutal military occupation to colonize, partition the land, and evict Arabs without proper consideration for their existing rights.

      • Hostage
        April 24, 2012, 1:05 pm

        My point was, that as late as 1930, the largest Zionist landowner employed Arab laborers. Right or wrong?

        I’m not going to engage in revisionist semantics with you. The parent organization of the P.I.C.A. and German colonies was the “Jewish Colonization Association”. It was a non-Zionist organization headquartered in Paris. See Gudrun Krämer, Graham Harman, A History of Palestine: From the Ottoman Conquest to the Founding of the State of Israel, Princeton University Press, 2008, page 114 link to books.google.com

        The Hope-Simpson report distinguished between P.I.C.A, German, and Zionist Organization colonies, and so did the rest of the world at that time, e.g. link to news.google.com

        Herzl’s Zionist Organization was based upon the proposition that attempts by Jews to live among Gentiles inevitably created anti-semitism where it had never existed before and that Jews had to live in a separate Jewish state. Rothschild’s organization was named the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association. It was not part of Herz’ls Zionist Organization. In fact, the 13th and 14th Zionist Congress had voted to keep non-Zionists out of the Organization and the Jewish Agency for Palestine. Weizmann was forced to change that policy as a result of the events of 1929. Rothschild nonetheless retained title to his colonies for the remainder of his life – well after the establishment of the State of Israel. The 1930 Jewish newspaper report above quoted the relevant portion of the Hope-Simpson report and explained that the relationship between the Zionist Organization and P.I.C.A was one of mutual hostility.

      • proudzionist777
        April 27, 2012, 3:17 pm

        Hostage said:

        “The non-mitigating factors that you mention do not alter the fact that Zionists deliberately caused the territorial displacement of the Arab cultivators and employed Hebrew laborers to take their place.”
        -and-
        “In fact the declassified documents in the UK archives establish that British government officials, like Balfour, Curzon, Devonshire, Ormsby-Gore, and Passfield, knew all along that support and preferential treatment for the Zionists was contrary to the well being of the non-Jewish communities”.

        But in 1931 Labor Zionism was endorsed by the H.M.G. in Prime Minister Ramsey McDonald’s letter to Chaim Weizman, i.e. ‘The Black Letter”.

        MacDonald said that, “The principle of preferential and, indeed, exclusive employment of Jewish labour by Jewish organizations is a principle which the Jewish Agency are entitled to affirm”. Hansard, Parlimentary Debates, House of Commons, Fifth ser., vol 248, MacDonald to Kenworthy. 13 Feb. 1931, 757.

        Barbara Smith commented, “In essence, the letter put H.M.G.’s seal of approval on economic separatism”. ‘Roots” pg. 16.

        Hostage. What’s a Zionist to do?

      • Hostage
        April 28, 2012, 2:51 pm

        But in 1931 Labor Zionism was endorsed by the H.M.G. in Prime Minister Ramsey McDonald’s letter to Chaim Weizman, i.e. ‘The Black Letter”.

        He certainly did not endorse the policy of employing only Hebrew Labor on lands purchased by Jews, he simply acknowledged it was their right and that it would have dire consequences in the area of Jewish immigration quotas. FYI, you’re only digging yourself in deeper. This letter supplies additional evidence that the Jewish organizations did have a policy of displacing Arabs from lands that they purchased and replacing them with Jewish immigrant laborers. The same thing applies to Smith’s remarks about Jewish separatism.

        I’ve already shown that the British government frequently said one thing in its classified record of major cabinet policy decisions, and quite another thing when explaining those policies to others. But in this case, Ramsey McDonald didn’t back away from the White Paper’s conclusions. He called attention to landless Arab cultivators who had been displaced from the lands which they occupied in consequence of the land passing into Jewish hands. The 1931 letter announced his intention to limit Jewish immigration based upon unemployment among those Arabs as a consequence of “[t]he principle of preferential, and indeed exclusive, employment of Jewish labor by Jewish organizations”. He noted that policy decision did not imply a prohibition of acquisition of additional lands by Jews. I’m sure you’re aware that, by 1939, H.M.G. and Ramsey McDonald had changed their minds about the land transfer policy as well. link to unispal.un.org

        You’ll just have to beat the dead horses of Zionism without me. I’m no longer interested in commenting on this thread.

  31. Bing Bong
    April 17, 2012, 9:33 am

    “You’re obviously not familiar with the books and articles that CAMERA is discussing”

    I didn’t mistakenly claim to have translated the original letter like you and JPS and I wasn’t under the impression that BG replaced the text with ‘We must’ when in actual fact ‘We must’ is what is left after the scribble.

    “Unlike your comments, mine have employed verbatim quotes from Efraim Karsh, Benny Morris, and others which describe the exact contents of the letter and the nature of the errata.”

    The most relevant argument you provided was when you claimed that the sentence is repeated because this is actually relating to the context within the letter. That is why I specifically queried you on it and little if any of the irrelevancies you provided.

    “In the process of writing the letter, Ben-Gurion apparently realized he had repeated himself on the question of the use of force” Karsh

    To which you leap to claim….

    “CAMERA has played down the fact that the original letter contains a redundant copy of this entire sentence written in Ben Gurion’s own handwriting.”

    Where in the original handwritten letter is a redundant copy of this entire sentence?

    I have a copy of the original hand written letter and my translation does not have a repetition of this sentence like you erroneously claim and Karsh actually doesn’t share your view either. He is arguing that the phrase is “We must not…” As Karsh says,

    “The most egregious of these was the distortion of an October 1937 letter from David Ben-Gurion to his son. Morris cited the letter as saying, “We must expel Arabs and take their place,” when Ben-Gurion actually said the opposite. “

    And he doesn’t say the letter contains a redundant copy of either version of this entire sentence, neither version of the phrase is repeated in the letter. Get someone who reads Hebrew to confirm it because OCR and Google Translate won’t be up to the task.

    FYI resorting to Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons is as much use as resorting to quoting Abu Hamza to attack Islam. Objectivity remember, you can quote anybody to say anything, as indeed you and JPS are doing with the BG phrase I am discussing.

    “None of the sentences which mention building-up the armed forces for use in colonizing Arab Palestine or Transjordan are “damaged” or disputed in either CAMERA article.”

    I didn’t say they were, because that isn’t what I’m arguing. Please bear in mind what I am arguing.

    My thesis still is…

    “JPS didn’t provide a full translation of the original Hebrew letter like they claimed. They have provided a full (in fact overflowing as they’ve kindly added some of their own words at no extra cost) translation of the transcription which ignores the completely incongruous scribble that renders the paragraph nonsensical and is regarded as such by consensus among historians”

    Why is it from your point of view, so far fetched to think that BG didn’t use the phrase to “make him look good or prescient.“, as you yourself said? I don’t see why you need to accept this phrase as direct evidence when you can easily write it off as a BG deception or manipulation, it can easily be read as such in the “We must not expel” form in accordance with your “unchallengeable mountain of evidence”.

    That’s the problem you seem to keep missing over and over again as shown when you even resort to bringing in The Affair as evidence. Your evidence (assuming its truth) is strongly supportive of the “We must not” version as a deception or “cherry picked letter[s]” of Ben Gurion’s. It is very weak at supporting the “We must expel” form because 1. It is obviously not what he wrote in the letter, and 2. There are a number of other statements in the letter that share the same general sentiment as the “We must not expel” form (as quoted above) that are unquestionably present in the letter and remain present in the letter despite your evidence, as I quoted a couple of posts back, (unless you are arguing that the whole thing is fake as I surmised you might be).

    I’m addressing the original blog post which is specifically about the letter and JPS’ incorrect and subsequently fallacious attempt to prove the “We must expel” version. You are using whatever evidence you can get from anywhere else to uphold the version of the phrase you prefer because “We must not” as a primary source doesn’t square with that mountain of unchallengeable evidence as much as you, Mondoweiss and JPS would love it to, seemingly unaware that the “We must not” version doesn’t necessarily challenge your external evidence sourced from outwith the letter if you take into account your claim that BG edited his writings.

    You have got it backwards, this issue is about what is in the letter and then whether it accords with particular historical events or not. Not what the historical events were and whether they support what you think is, or more accurately, prefer to be in the letter.

    You’re using evidence from outwith the letter to try and prove something that is actually present, isn’t actually present. Proving it isn’t there has nothing to do with external evidence, unless this evidence directly addresses why the letter is wrong. IE it is a fake, BG manipulated the truth, someone else added text, BG actually meant to make himself look bad and his letter nonsense.

    When you do try to find a genuine internal deficiency, namely, you claim he repeated the sentence “We must expel” in the letter (and this would be very strong evidence that he indeed meant to write ‘We must expel’ at some point in the text) it turns out to be a lie, or at the very least shows you to be unqualified to claim others are unfamiliar with the material.

  32. Bing Bong
    April 17, 2012, 3:41 pm

    link to camera.org

    Institute for Palestine Studies Stands by Misrepresentations, Mistranslations

  33. Hostage
    April 17, 2012, 3:47 pm

    I have a copy of the original hand written letter and my translation does not have a repetition of this sentence like you erroneously claim and Karsh actually doesn’t share your view either.

    LOL! Wake us up when you finally post your English translation of the entire three lines of crossed-out text. I notice you’ve avoided doing that so far, and that CAMERA has only translated a fragment of one line. Where is the translation of all the so-called “damaged” text shown in the non-highlighted, scribbled-over lines of the letter CAMERA produced here: link to camera.org

    Véronique Meimoun wrote that: “The original document contains a rectification: a sentence and a half are scribbled over in ink.” I mentioned that in a comment here: link to mondoweiss.net

    Morris noted in his review of Fabricating History that Karsh claimed Ben Gurion had repeated himself on the use of force and either noticed the redundancy or wanted to rephrase what he had said. I cited his English translation of the entire three lines in one of my comments here: link to mondoweiss.net

    Morris rendered it “And then we will have to use force . . . without hesitation though only when we have no choice. We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their place. . . .”

    You and CAMERA are artlessly trying to deflect attention away from the fact that Ben Gurion is discussing the illegal use of force in the event the governments of the Arab States stand in the way of settling tens of thousands of Jews on their own territory after the partition. The question of whether or not there would have been sufficient room to “share the land” is completely irrelevant, since there was no such thing as a “Jewish right” to settle in Transjordan under the mandate or in the Arab States under the Peel partition proposal. This extract, with translation provided by Morris, describes a flagrant violation of international law with or without the disputed material:

    Let us assume that the Negev will not be allotted to the Jewish state. . . . it is possible that the Arabs will follow the dictates of sterile nationalist emotions and tell us: “We want neither your honey nor your sting. We’d rather that the Negev remain barren than that Jews should inhabit it.” If this occurs, we will have to talk to them in a different language—and we will have a different language—but such a language will not be ours without a state. This is so because we can no longer tolerate that vast territories capable of absorbing tens of thousands of Jews should remain vacant, and that Jews cannot return to their homeland because the Arabs prefer that the place remains neither ours nor theirs. “And then we will have to use force . . . without hesitation though only when we have no choice. We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their place. . . .” But if we are compelled to use force – not in order to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev or Transjordan, but in order to guarantee our right to settle there – our force will enable us to do so.

    FYI resorting to Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons is as much use as resorting to quoting Abu Hamza to attack Islam.

    I think that Simons qualifies as a typical Zionist, because of his obvious character defects. You obviously can’t refute anything in the documentary evidence that Simons supplied, so you’ve resorted to a genetic fallacy. Simons didn’t create the letters, transcripts, and manuscripts that he compiled.

    1 in 10 Israelis today are living in illegal settlements established on captured Arab territory. The ICJ observed that those enclaves and the separation wall had resulted in demographic changes to the Arab territories and displacement of the Palestinians that constitute serious violations of international law. Despite that fact, the current Labor Party leader, Shelly Yachimovich, has defended her party’s historical role in establishing them and claims that they are neither a crime nor a sin. Those views are perfectly consistent with the ones found in Ben Gurion’s letter.

    • Bing Bong
      April 19, 2012, 4:37 am

      “LOL! Wake us up when you finally post your English translation of the entire three lines of crossed-out text. I notice you’ve avoided doing that so far,…”

      I’ll post my translation of the 3 lines if you can give a concise summation of why you think it says “We must expel…” and why you think “We must expel..” is not nonsense within the context of the letter without bringing in irrelevant exterior evidence as justification. The history cannot be expected to necessarily support a certain reading of the letter, the letter itself is evidence (and it can be incongruous, at odds, fake, wrong etc) and as such has to be read in the first instance in an objective manner before making a judgement or argument for or against it’s level of support for the history and how concordant history is with the letter. You cannot just invent the contents of a letter based on exterior events even if these events are addressed in the letter. You absolutely cannot expect the history to change what is written in the letter, clearly nonsense.

      “Véronique Meimoun wrote that:….. I mentioned that in a comment here….”

      But you also said “It had been replaced with the text “We must expel Arabs…”

      So which is it?

      “Morris noted in his review of Fabricating History that Karsh claimed Ben Gurion had repeated himself on the use of force and either noticed the redundancy or wanted to rephrase what he had said.”

      But you said this means that Karsh claims the entire sentence is repeated, he didn’t and it isn’t in either form. So, again, which is it? and why are you, of all people claiming I’m unfamiliar with the material when you seem to be unfamiliar with the material you are posting here as quotation?

      “You and CAMERA are artlessly trying to deflect attention away from the fact that Ben Gurion is discussing the illegal use of force in the event…”

      I’m concentrating on this thread’s argument regarding the existence of the phrase that JPS have tried to prove reads as “We must expel” found in the title of this thread and the point of pretty much every post I’ve made. It is you who is not attending to the topic of what is actually being disputed as present in the letter, not I. The reason being of course, that the phrase is obviously “We must not expel”.

      As I said I’m not offering a challenge here to the “unchallengeable mountain of evidence” you have supplied and I’ve already said that in the “we must not form” it can still be totally consistent with your view, if not in the most direct and explicit way you prefer it to be. Your evidence doesn’t magically make the phrase say “We must expel the Arabs” any more than JPS adding words to the phrase makes it a true translation.

      Your “unchallengeable mountain of evidence” does not now contain the phrase as found in the letter “We must expel Arabs….”. Or do you believe it does?

      Answer that last question too and I’ll give you my translation.

      • Hostage
        April 19, 2012, 7:55 pm

        I’ll post my translation of the 3 lines if you can give a concise summation of why you think it says “We must expel…” and why you think “We must expel..” is not nonsense within the context of the letter without bringing in irrelevant exterior evidence as justification.

        No thanks. I’ve already employed a translation from Morris above which does NOT employ the “We must expel” reading from Ben Gurion’s final Hebrew transcript of the contents of the letter. I’ve explained that he is nonetheless describing a plan to violate the norms of customary international law reflected in the Stimson Doctrine and the League of Nations Lytton Commision Report of 1931. That analysis is based solely on the evidence contained in the letter itself and the reading most favorable to Ben Gurion that you prefer.

        FYI, Efraim Karsh wasn’t laboring under your arbitrary restrictions. He cited Ben Gurion’s diaries and the minutes of the Jewish Agency Executive, as translated by Yossi Katz, as an integral part of his analysis of the letter in “Fabricating History”. So there’s no reason the rest of us should work with our hands tied behind our backs either.

      • Hostage
        April 19, 2012, 9:13 pm

        P.S. But you also said “It had been replaced with the text “We must expel Arabs…”

        So which is it?.

        I’ve pointed out that Ben Gurion holds the copyrights on all three versions and that every reading says that he was planning to commit flagrant violations of international law.

        Why don’t you just explain why Ben Gurion crossed-out the text in the draft until it finally read “We must expel the Arabs and take their place.” and subsequently had typewritten Hebrew transcripts prepared that also replaced the errata in question with the text “We must expel the Arabs and take their place.”?

        When his publishers discovered the possible conflict, they simply chose to omit the sentence entirely without even hinting at the existence of a lacuna or the possibility of your preferred reading.

        In 1968, Labor PM Eshkol was authorizing illegal settlements in the captured Arab territories, against the advice of his own advisor, Theodore Meron. Defense Minister Moshe Dayan masterminded the Nahal settlements and was the first Israeli official to introduce the disingenuous term “disputed territories” during a speech to the UN General Assembly in 1977. He authored a secret memo in 1968 proposing massive settlement in the territories which said “Settling Israelis in administered territory, as is known, contravenes international conventions, but there is nothing essentially new about that.” See Israeli State Archives 153.8/7920/7A, Document 60, dated October 15, 1968, cited in Gershom Gorenberg, “The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977″, Macmillan, 2007, page 173. Dayan had no intention of negotiating “agreed swaps”. He claimed that “Boundaries are not delimited on maps, rather they are drawn through establishing settlements.”

        President Johnson explained that “The nations of the Middle East must at last address themselves to the plight of those who have been displaced by wars.” Israel nonetheless carried-out more ethnic cleansing in the villages of the Latrun salient. The former sites were subsequently obliterated by the Canada Recreational Park.
        *http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=28308#axzz1sXS3ZrOa
        *http://www.palestineremembered.com/al-Ramla/Imwas/

        Those actions and statements are perfectly consistent with the views expressed in Ben Gurion’s books that were published after 1968 based upon his letters and diaries.

      • Bing Bong
        April 20, 2012, 5:21 am

        “LOL! Wake us up when you finally post your English translation of the entire three lines of crossed-out text. I notice you’ve avoided doing that so far,…”

        Wakey wakey Hostage! I’ll let you have it anyway.

        “Because (it will not be tenable)/(we will not be able to suffer) that large areas of unsettled land ,which might facilitate thousands of Jewish people, will remain empty, not allowing the Jews to return to their country, because the Arabs choose that both us and them will not have the place.

        And if we will (need) (be required) to utilise force ….. only when there will be no other alternative for us. We do not want, and we do not need to push away Arabs and take their place. All our aspiration is built on the presumption – which has shown itself to be true

        during all of our actions in Israel – that there is sufficient space for us and the Arabs in the land and if we will need to utilise force, – it will not be in order to push the Arabs from the Negev or over the Jordan…… but in order to ensure for us the right which we deserve to settle there….”

        (NB We couldn’t make out the part that refers to ‘hesitation’ and about 5 other words replaced by ellipses. See alternative translations of the original handwritten letter, not Hostage’s OCR’d and Google translated transcript or JPS’s fictionalised version of the printed transcription)

        Throughout the letter we have numerous quotes that share the sentiment of cooperation with Arabs in the first instance within whatever final form the reluctantly accepted partitioning were to take.

        “At that point I am confident that we would not fail in settling in the remaining parts of the country, through agreement and understanding with our Arab neighbors, or through some other means.”

        “it will be possible for the Arabs to benefit enormously from the Jews, not only materially but politically as well.”

        “Once we are numerous and powerful in the country the Arabs will realize that it is better for them to become our allies.”

        “They will derive benefits from our assistance if they, of their own free will, give us the opportunity to settle in all parts of the country.”

        “But the Jews could be equal allies, real friends, not occupiers or tyrants over them.”

        “We do not want, and we do not need to push away Arabs and take their place”

        “All of our ambitions are built on the assumption that has proven true throughout all of our activities in the land — that there is enough room for us and for the Arabs in the land [of Israel].”

        Whether or not these statements, unequivocally present in the letter, represent a reality of purpose or decent reflection of history is to be decided by the study of history, specific examples of which you have been so kind as to select and present here over and over again. This however does not tell us what is written in the letter.

        I am fully satisfied that any reasonable person will agree the statement “We must not expel…” is in concert and in no way incongruous within the context and sentiment of the letter.

        More directly, the phrase in the “We must” form renders the passage literally nonsensical.

        To continue to claim the veracity of, and use the popular and widely used anti-Zionist phrase “We must expel” as per the original blog post title above by Adam Horowitz or by JPS (their ‘translation’ being the subject of the post) is pure deceit.

        The ‘unchallengeable mountain of evidence’ is a little bit smaller now. If anyone wants to continue to flaunt their unfamiliarity with the material feel free to use the “We must” form of the quote as evidence.

        LOL, as Hostage would say.

      • Blake
        April 21, 2012, 12:52 pm

        In a UNCCP document dated July 4, 1947, oral evidence was presented at a public meeting where Ben-Gurion was present. Ben-Gurion was discussing the “disparities between Jews and Arabs” in Palestine.

        In the minutes of the meeting Ben- Gurion stated:”I shall mention only a few [referring to the disparities between Arabs and Jews]. There is the disparity in numbers. There are some 600,000 Jews in Palestine and some 1,100,000 Arabs. There are no reliable figures in this respect. There is an even greater disparity than that. The Arabs own 94% of the land, the Jews only 6%. The Arabs have seven States, the Jews none. The Arabs have vast underdeveloped territories-Iraq alone is three times as large as England”

        So, Ben-Gurion himself admitted that the Arabs of Palestine owned 94 percent of the land while the Jews owned 6 percent of it, according to this UNCCP document:
        link to unispal.un.org

  34. Talkback
    April 22, 2012, 6:42 pm

    A Historical Survey of Proposals to Transfer Arabs from Palestine 1895 – 1947 by Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons
    link to chaimsimons.net

  35. Bing Bong
    July 18, 2012, 8:28 am

    With such a “mountain of unchallengeable evidence” why is there even one false Ben Gurion quotation? Here’s another, do I detect a smear campaign?

    link to camera.org

Leave a Reply