Emigration to Mandate Palestine from the Hauran

A report on the present conditions in the Hauran was published in the Journal of The Royal Central Asian Society in 1936.

One of the topics was the emigration of the population in the region, the Southern Golan, into Mandate Palestine.

An excerpt:

...during the spring and summer of 1934 some twenty-five to thirty thousand people left Hauran, and that 96 per cent, of them emigrated to Palestine. Mass emigration started in April from these drought-stricken regions when it became clear that all hope of a harvest had to be abandoned, and soon spread to other districts. In August-September, when the available food supply had been almost exhausted, emigration reached its height. The largest number of emigrants came from the Der'a and Bosra-Eskisham districts, where some villages were almost completely deserted.

Approximately 10 per cent of the emigrants turned to the Syrian cities, Damascus and Beirut. The present grave economic crisis in Syria and the labour glut, due to the constant influx of fellaheen from the rural districts to the towns, have deterred the Haurani from wandering to the interior of the country. On the other hand, reports of conditions in Palestine, the plentiful employment, the higher wages, and the general prosperity, proved irresistibly attractive, and the first immigrants were soon followed by those who had previously tried their luck in the various cities of Syria. Even in normal times there was a continual stream of emigration from Hauran, and in periods of drought, such as has occurred during the last two years, the exodus assumed mass proportions. 

Native Hauranis were familiar figures in the large towns of Syria and of Palestine in normal times as well, although their numbers never reached the present total. The existing situation must not, therefore, be regarded only as a result of the drought. The underlying causes go much deeper, and the problem of emigration from Hauran is neither new nor merely temporary.

At the beginning of October a number of Hauranis began to return from Palestine to their homes. Most went voluntarily, but there were also deportees. At the end of October it was estimated that about 30 per cent, had returned to Hauran.  Under pressure of Jewish public opinion and the growing opposition of the Arabs themselves to Hauran immigration, which had begun to affect the local wage level adversely, the Government of Palestine began to make sporadic arrests of Hauranis, and some were deported. 

But the Hauranis themselves told the writer that only a small number of the immigrants were sent out of the country, and that the majority of the deportees returned either immediately or a little later.  

There were 14 more years left too the existence of the Mandate regime. What were the demographics of Arabs from outside Mandate Palestine who came to the country and stayed?  And how many fled during 1947-1948 and became "refugees"?

^

Peter Beinart Goes 'Supreme'

Peter Beinart uploaded a short clip on Instagram. Its message:

Of course, that is a sleight-of-words exercise.

He has substituted "supremacy" for "political sovereignty". He then suggests that a Jewish state is inherently wrong in that it asserts its sovereignty over non-Jews.

But what is truly invidious is that he knows well that he is employing a term that resonates as racist, such as "white supremacist".

Aside from being wrong, what he is encouraging is violence directed at Israelis and, as we have seen since October 2023, the pro-Palestine forces do not make any distinction between Israeli and Jews and go about physically assaulting Jews, damaging Jewish property and institutions and seeking to commit psychological injury to Jews for being Jews. In their logic, all Jews must be 'Zionists'.

Of course, that destroys Beinart's thesis which is that Jews should not be permitted to run a political state. But to explain to him that, at least in the modern era, a main impetetus for Zionism was antisemitism - in addition to the 2000-year old vision of a return to Zion - and that today's antisemitism simply justifies the right of Jews to maintain a state, would be beyond his intellectual grasp.

And why?

Because Beinart's prejudices and political orientation override any rational thinking in which he may engage.

^

Jewish "settlers" in 1932, in Russia

Mr. Medad, are Jews in their historic national homeland termed "settlers"?

That's the language everyone now uses. In the London Times of August 20, 1932, however, Jews from Mandate Palestine going to Birobijan, Russia were also "settlers" and "colonists". Perhaps the word did not possess today's perjorative level.

Go figure it out.

On the Jewish Autonomous Oblast of Birobijan, see here. And here. On Menachem Elkind,

Sketch of Elkind by Mendel Gorshman 1933

see this.

P.S. A hint as to Elkind's problem with the Gudud Ha'Avodah:

"After having familiarised itself with the situation in Gdud Avoda, the Eastern Secretariat states a disillusionment with the national chauvinistic frenzy that has arisen in the milieu of Jewish workers in Palestine and also in Gdud, which has overcome its 'theory' of constructive socialism and is taking the path of consistent class struggle."

^

Fawzi al-Qawuqji and Southern Syria

Fawzi al-Qawuqji (or spelled Fauzi el-Kaukji) played a role in two Arab anti-Zionist military campaigns.

He was Lebanese-born, Tripoli, and fought for Faisal in Syria, against the French, then in the French-Syrian Army, for Saudi Arabia and even was a colonel in the Nazi Wehrmacht during World War II, and served as the Arab Liberation Army (ALA) field commander during the 1948 Palestine War.

In 1912, he graduated from the military academy in Istanbul. During World War I, he served as a captain in the 12th Ottoman corps garrison in Mosul and fought in several battles alongside General Otto von Kreiss's Prussian unit. He was at Beersheva and Nebi Samuel.

In 1936, he crossed over into the Palestine Mandate territory to fight the British and the Jews.

His title?

Supreme Commander of...South-Syrian Palestine.

^

An Observation on Israelis and Archaeology

Ariel David of Haaretz reported on a new find, one that appears here and deals with An Israelite Residency at Mahanaim in Transjordan?

It deals with  "the site of Tall adh-Dhahab al-Gharbi in the valley of the az-Zarqa River, the biblical Jabbok, in Jordan. We discuss a group of incised ashlar blocks found there, probably dating to the first half of the 8th century BCE. We suggest that the blocks originated from an official building, a residency or a gate complex, not yet excavated, and propose thematic similarities with visual imagery from Kuntillet ʿAjrud. We then show that this site can be securely identified with biblical Mahanaim and point to several biblical verses that may hint at the existence of a North Israelite residency there."

Credit: Pola et. al./Ruhama Bonfil / The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

And he needed to add two, let's call them 'hesitations'.

The first:

To be clear, no one is proclaiming that evidence has been found confirming the historicity of this or other biblical narratives linked to this region. Rather, the evidence of a strong administrative Israelite presence in Transjordan helps us understand why key foundational biblical stories were set in this area, say the study's authors, Prof. Israel Finkelstein of Haifa University and Prof. Tallay Ornan of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

And the second:

A word of caution must be sounded again: identifying the names of biblical places like Mahanaim or Penuel doesn't necessarily say anything about the historicity of biblical stories that take place there. It simply means that – based on the geography, the modern names of the sites, the biblical descriptions and the archaeological or historical evidence – scholars think that these are the real locations that the authors and readers of the Bible would have had in mind as a setting for their stories.

I am almost tempted to write "God forbid that anything that could seemingly confirm the Biblical narrative would be accepted as as close to the scientific truth as possible.

^

Introducing Rashid Rida on Zionism

Anyone who follows pro-'Palestine' Islamic propaganda will recognzie in the excerpts below the source material for the virulent antisemitism, exaggerations and misrepresentations emanating from the Palestinian National Authgority official bodies as well as activists on behalf on 'Palestine'.

They originate from Rashid Rida.

Another scholar claims "As one of the most influential advocates of Arab nationalism and pan-Islamism, we shall argue, Riḍā’s critiques of Zionism and Jewish expansion in Palestine were part of his anti-colonial activities against the ‘Christian’ west." Nevertheless, he notes that Rida asserted as to Jewish goals, "allegedly, they schemed to possess Jerusalem and its neighbouring regions to establish their Kingdom of Israel and turn it into the Temple of Solomon, against the desire of Christians and Muslims (ʿAbduh and Riḍā [1328] 1910, V:139–140)."

He further quotes Rida "Under the title “King of the Jews, their Temple, their Messiah and the True Messiah,” Riḍā stated that the Jews arrogantly disobeyed their prophets, who regularly warned them against God’s punishment if they abandoned His commandments (Al-Manār 30/7: 546–556)."

And Rida becomes starkly clear in this excerpt:

One of Islam’s greatest manifestations, according to Riḍā, was the confirmation of glad tidings of Jesus as a prophet of God and not his son. In this reading, God entitled Muslims to inherit the Holy Land and to build the Al-Aqsa Mosque in the place of the destroyed temple in order to establish the worship of God alone. Riḍā repeated the traditional Muslim view that God placed those who believe in Jesus above the unbelievers (Qur’an Āl ʿImrān 3:55), but that He had struck the Jews with humiliation by making them lose their kingdom until the Day of Resurrection. The Jews, Riḍā said, would follow the Antichrist as their assumed king fighting under his banner in the Holy Land, but Muslims would finally achieve victory upon them and kill them, and the true Messiah would appear and reveal the truth by destroying the Antichrist (Al-Manār 30/7: 554).

And in this:

Muslims did not persecute the Jews but treated them with justice and mercy. He observed that the Jews started to permit each other to reside in Jerusalem around the western side of the wall of the Al-Aqsa Mosque (Al-Buraq), performing the rituals and sacrifices against the will of Muslims and Christians in the world. They had strong hope to multiply their numbers to own the Holy City and the rest of Palestine in preparation for the appearance of the Messiah again as the King of Israel (Al-Manār 30/5: 391). 

Rida also employed the term nakba already in early 1935:

A few months before Riḍā’s death, the Egyptian historian and religious scholar ʻAbd al-Wahhāb al-Najjār (1862–1941) gave a lecture at Jamʿiyyat al-Shubbān al-Muslimīn (Association of Young Muslim Men) in which he maintained that the Jewish Zionist presence in Palestine was to be like a short “summer cloud” that would clear up soon after a great shock, followed by the defeat of the Jews after the restoration of the kingdom of David and the appearance of the Messiah (Al-Manār 34/8: 607–612)...After the lecture, Riḍā stood up and disagreed with al-Najjār in his arguments. Instead of following this apocalyptic way of thinking, Riḍā requested Arabs and Muslims to “take admonition in the Jewish Zionist nakba (catastrophe) by means of the worldly affairs and social natural laws” (Al-Manār 34/8: 608). By this he urged his Muslim readers not to see the Jewish success on the basis of their religious zeal but due to their work to achieve their political goals. 

Rida "called upon Arab Christians and Arab Muslims, supported by other Muslims in the world, to get the benefit of uniting themselves against the growing power of the Jews. In his own words: The doctrine of the Jews in restoring the King of Israel by means of the Messiah is [39] a denial of the religion of Islam and a clear rejection of Christ Jesus, Son of Mary, may blessings and peace be upon him. It was, however, Christ with whom their prophets had preached, but they had denied him. It was also him who warned them against the ruin of their Temple of Solomon so that there would not remain any stone of it."

Here are more excerpts of another researcher:

A reading of Rida’s depictions of Jews as the embodiment of vices and the orchestrators of global-scale conspiracies is useful to the broader discussion on the proliferation of anti-Semitic ideas in the contemporary Arab world. Translations of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion have been available in Arabic since the mid-1920s, and by the late 1920s they were already incorporated as an argument against Zionism. Following the 1948 war, the Protocols proliferated as an explanation for the Arab defeat. However, Rida viewed Jews as the masters of anti-Christian and anti-Muslim conspiracies already at the turn of the century, with no experience of defeat in mind and no foundational hateful European textbook to guide him. It appears that he was acquainted, albeit not through primary sources, with French anti-Semitic expressions as well as with their refutations in France. Anti-Semitic allegations in Istanbul also did not escape him. Ironically and to a large measure, Rida’s developed anti-Semitism reads as accommodation of his original admiration of Jewish virtues with his realization that Zionism was a serious threat...

...Under the title “The Life of a Nation after Its Death: The Zionist Association of the Jews,” Rida revised his earliest impression of Jewish nationalism, and, always the journalist, flattered himself (without justification in this case), for having already written about the Zionist movement in 1898, “when no one else took notice of it.” His analysis failed to distinguish between Zionists and Jews, and disclosed that he was unaware that the movement had won the hearts of only a minority of Jews around the world....

...Apparently confusing, at least in part, Herzl (whose name was not mentioned in the entire article) with the British-Jewish author and Zionist leader Israel Zangwill (1864 – 1926), Rida wrote that Zangwill had recently negotiated the purchase of Jerusalem as well as predicted a massive Jewish return to Palestine and the transformation of the land by the people of Israel into a shining lighthouse in all fields – social, political, judicial, cultural, and agricultural. Rida went as far as positing that Zangwill was wrong in reprimanding the rich Jews for not donating to Zionism...

In 1903, Rida addressed the Jews again...He wrote that no people in the world demonstrated such communal unity and ethnic solidarity as the People of Israel (Sha‘b Isra’il); however, he added that the Jews tended to divert the resources of the nations among which they lived to their own benefit, and harmed themselves by their excessive egotism. This, he argued, was the reason for the persecution of the Jews and their expulsion by all the peoples and nations. Hinting at Jewish ungratefulness, he concluded that while they could find a safe haven only in the Ottoman Empire, they now sought to gain independence and renew their sovereignty in Palestine...

...On January 1908, following a long period of silence, Rida addressed Zionism again, although indirectly. In a Quran exegesis, he disputed the Jewish hope for a Messiah who would renew Jewish sovereignty. He also suggested that the Jews’ dispersion throughout the world, their lack of expertise in warfare and agriculture, and their focus on professions that required little effort, like charging interest-based loans, were impediments that would prevent the realization of their dream of renewed sovereignty. The weakness of the Jews, he argued, was a punishment from God for their infidelity. Only two years later, Rida changed his mind about the potential of Zionism...In December 1910, he presented the Zionist danger in even graver terms: should the Jews realize their plan to take over alAqsa, they would expel the Muslims and the Christians from the Holy Land...

...[In 1914 he wrote] that if Zionist ambitions were ever realized, they would not allow a single Muslim or Christian to remain in Palestine, as they believed that it belonged to the Israelites alone. Furthermore, the Promised Land that the Zionists sought to conquer was not what Muslims defined as Palestine; rather, according to Jewish scriptures and conventions, Palestine stretched to Syria and the Euphrates. Rida based his warning of the prospect of ethnic cleansing on the argument that in the book of Deuteronomy God ordered the Jews not to spare a single soul upon entering the land...

...in an appendix to a Quranic exegesis from 1924, he cautioned that the “Arabs of Palestine,” who were confronted by “two of the world’s strongest nations [the British and the Jews],” could only be saved if they united with the rest of the Arab peoples and tribes to defend Palestine as well as the holy shrines in Mecca and Medina. Yet the underlying objective of this warning – in itself exceptional for his writing during the early 1920s – was not to call for action, but to denounce Sharif Hussein and his family and praise the Sa‘uds. Rida portrayed Hussein’s family as supporters of those who were seeking to implement the “satanic plan” to deprive the Palestinians of their land, i.e., the British and the Zionists. He cautioned the Palestinians against cooperating with the Sharifian family, explaining that while they could boast a distinguished lineage (as descendents of the Prophet Muhammad), they lacked knowledge and honesty...

...until mid-1920...he noted, in an objective manner, that the Jews considered Palestine as their sacred, ancestral land, but neither debated that claim nor insisted that Palestine was a Muslim land that must never be conceded to the Jews as such. That changed in 1924, but in a way that was far from affirming that Muslims were the rightful owners of the land or would eventually have the upper hand against the Zionists. In a Quranic exegesis, Rida suggested in an almost even-handed manner that God had promised the land to both the Israelite sons of Abraham and to the Arab sons of Abraham, who had also been promised additional lands. The promises were kept for both Israelites and Arabs when they acted righteously, but when they sinned they were punished and the land was taken from them...

...Already in October 1928, only days after the tensions over the Wailing Wall began, Rida portrayed events in Palestine as a struggle between Judaism and Islam, as well as between Britain and Islam. In this struggle, the British were assisting the Jews as part of Britains’s “ambitious” and uncharacteristically illconceived plan to subordinate the Arab nation and impose British rule on the Arabian Peninsula and the three holiest shrines – in Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem. In this struggle, the ultimate goal of the Jews was the destruction of al-Aqsa, the third holiest shrine in Islam, and its replacement with a new Jewish temple...

...Rida elaborated [in December 1929] on the prophecies of a Muslim victory over the Jews, reiterating that those were more reliable than the Jewish prophets’ prophecies of Jewish victory. He mentioned the prophecy that the Jews would give fanatic loyalty to the Dajal, a false Messiah, fight against Muslims and Christians in Palestine and other lands, and be defeated, as well as the Prophet’s words, narrated by ‘Abdullah b. ‘Umar: “I heard Allah’s Messenger saying, ‘The Jews will fight with you, and you will be given victory over them so that a stone will say, ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew behind me, kill him!’”...Zionism, he argued, was a striking example of Western moral corruption, because in Palestine the English had done something they had not done anywhere else: they had created a new people based on the ingathering of a rabble from all corners of the earth, allowing the rabble to usurp the land of another people and to exploit and discriminate against the population in a historically unprecedented way. Thus, for the first time, in late 1929, the Jews were denied in Rida’s journal not only a right to Palestine, but also the right to be considered a nation.

^

Gaza: A Brief Modern History Outline

Pre-1917 - Gaza part of the Ottoman Empire

1917 - Gaza conquered by British Army and subsequently becomes part of Mandate Palestine

1948 - Gaza conquered by Egypt and is ruled under a military governor. 

1948-1956 - Gaza is main base for Fedyeen terrorists infiltrating Israel

1956-1957 - Gaza is briefly under Israel military occupation

1967 - Gaza is militarily occupied by Israel following Egyptian initation of hostilities

2005 - Israeli Disengagement of total withdrawal from Gaza

2006 - Operation Summer Rains

2007 - Hamas assume Gaza governorship

2008 - Operation Hot Winter

2008/9 - Operation Cast Lead

2012 - Operation Pillar of Defense

2014 - Operation Protective Edge

2021 - Operation Guardian of the Walls

2023 - Swords of Iron War

To Be "Occupied Territory", It Must Have Been Part of a State

Are the so-called "Palestinian territories", that is Judea and Samaria, "occupied"?

Here is a section from Principles of International Law, by Hans Kelsen, 1952

The principle that enemy territory occupied by a belligerent in course of war remains the territory of the state against which the war is directed, can apply only as long as this community still exists as a state within the meaning of international law. This is hardly the case if, after occupation of the whole territory of an enemy state, its armed forces are completely defeated to that no further resistance is possible and its national government is abolished by the victorious state. Then the vanquished community is deprived of one of the essential elements of a state in the sense of international law: an effective and independent government, and hence has lost its character as a state. If the territory is not to be considered a stateless territory, it must be considered to be under the sovereignty of the occupant belligerent, which—in such a case—ceases to be restricted by the rules concerning belligerent occupation. This was the case with the territory of the German Reich occupied in the Second World War after the complete defeat and surrender of its armed forces. In view of the fact that the last national government of the German Reich was abolished, it may be assumed that this state ceased to exist as a subject of international law. If a belligerent state ceases legally to exist as an effect of the defeat, as, e.g., the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy in the First World War, or the German Reich in the Second World War, no peace treaty or any other treaty can be concluded with this state for the purpose of transferring the territory concerned, or parts of it, to the victorious or any other state.

On the territory of the abolished state a new state or some new states may be established. This was the case with the territory of the defeated Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, which was the territory of two united states. On this territory the Czechoslovakian and the Austrian Republics, and part of Poland have been established. This is also the case with the territory of the German Reich on which two new states came into existence; the western German state, called the Federal Republic of Germany; and the eastern German State, called the German Democrat. Republic. But the new state or the new states, which have not been at war with the victorious state, cannot conclude a peace treaty and are not entitled to dispose of other territory but their own. That the Austrian Republic was forced to conclude a peace treaty with the Allied and Associated Powers, although this new state was not at war with the states which by their victory brought the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy to dismemberment, and that the Austrian Republic was forced to dispose in this treaty of territory of the disappeared state which never was territory of the Austrian Republic, was based on the fiction that the Austrian Republic was identical with the Austrian Monarchy. In the case of the German Reich, the governments of the occupant powers maintained the fiction; that it continued to exist even after the abolishment of its last national government, and on the basis of this fiction it was assumed that the territory of the German Reich occupied by the four victorious powers was not under their sovereignty, but remained under the sovereignty of the German Reich. But the administration of the occupied territory was in no way in conformity with the rules concerning belligerent occupation. 

It sounds like Kelsen is arguing that Israel wouldn't have had any legal reason to follow the Geneva Conventions laws of occupation in the territories. They were not considered Jordanian or Egyptian territory and they certainly weren't "Palestinian". To apply the humanitarian components of Geneva is proper, of course, and Israel voluntarily did so. But this sounds to me that even if you hold that the prohibition of "transfer" of a population to the territory includes voluntary relocation, that this would not apply to the West Bank or Gaza after 1967.

There was a discussion in the UN's Law Commission  in relation to the Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States about the whether all conquest is forbidden or not. James Brierly, the great American authority on international law, suggested making clear that the ban on territorial acquisition only applied to illegal war, and the motion was adopted by the drafting committee. I Yearbook Int law commission 143 (1949)

Similarly, when there were quibbles about whether annexation is always banned, or whether there might be various exceptions, the Secretary observed: “It might be suggested that in order to constitute a crime under international law an annexation must be carried out through the use of armed force, with a view to destroying the territorial integrity of another State”  I Yearbook 137 (1950)

It is not surprising France and other major countries wanted to make clear that annexation and title by conquest were not ALWAYS forbidden: most European frontiers were substantially revised 1947-50 in favor of the victors/victims of WWII, and against the loosers/other victims.

I don’t think you will find any pre-’67 international law treatise that says that the laws of belligerent occupation apply to non-sovereign territory. The question had not been raised so it was probably not addressed in many treatises, but that’s because the answer was blindingly obvious and it was exactly the opposite of what everyone says about Israel today.

^