The Palmach and the Arabs Up Until November 1947

I have in the past dealt with the issue of the presumed "better morality" of the Palmach pre-state defence units under the aegis of the left-wing socialist Zionist parties, Ahdut Ha'Avoda and HaShomer HaTzair. Their claim was always that the Irgun and the Lechi were but fascists and blackguards and roughnecks.

However, Palmach members also were involved in activities that today would land them in an international tribunal for 'war crimes'.

I blogged about the attack on an Arab village.

I also blogged about castrations of Arab rapists.

 The Book of the Palmach 

published in 1957 contains more instances which I will briefly summarize.

Starting on page 602 and continuing until 605, under the heading "Guerrilla Actions" or "Small-scale Combat", several anti-Arab reprisal attacks are described.

For example, in the autumn of 1943 (the actual time was March 1942), a three-man squad of Pluga Alef entered a Bedouin encampment near Waldheim (today's Alonei Abba) 

to avenge the murder of Alexander Zaid. Zaïd was murdered on July 10, 1938 when ambushed by an Arab gang while on his way to meet members of kibbutz Alonim. The killer was Qassem Tabash, a Bedouin from the al-Hilaf tribe. He was killed in reprisal in front of some 20 of his fellow tribemen.

By the way, the Palmach eliminated two Germans at the Templar village there as well in 1948.

In February 1944, a squad from Pluga Alef were in the vicinity of Masada on a training trek. Near Ein Gedi, they were set upon by armed Beduoin brigands and, in defending themselves, killed two in an exchange of fire.

During the spring of 1945, the Palmach was involved in leading clandestine immigration overland from Lebanon. On occasion, they were set upon by Arab gang members who demanded, with threat of death, a payment as if a toll crossing. To halt this practice, members of Pluga Gimel disguised themselves as Arabs, crossed into Lebanon, engaged the gang members in conversation and then opened fire and killed several. This put an end to the attempts to threaten Jews coming into the homeland.

In the spring of 1947, Arab terror was resurrected. Two Jews were murdered in mid-May and the Palmach determined that a cafe in Fajja village, some 2 kilometers east of Petah Tikva,  was a gang headquarters for members of the Arab Al-Suwerka tribe. It was subsequently attacked on May 21. 

Palestine Post, May 22, 1947

More on this incident here.

Another incident occured in August 1947 at the Cafe Hawai. Following a murderous robbery attempt, the Palmach and Hagan made a reprisal raid a week later:

Palestine Post, August 17, 1947

On October 7, 1947, a Palmach unit set out on a reprisal raid against a murderous gang near Kfar Syrkin who had killed two Jews previously that week.

Palestine Post, October 7, 1947

That evening, a Palmach squad set out to the orchards near Rosh Ha'Ayin to find the gang. In the battle, three gang members were killed, as well as a Jaffa prostitute who was spending the vening there, and one was wounded.

Palestine Post, October 8, 1947

A few incidents happened in the fall on the Negev protecting the supply and transportation lines to the kibbutzim there.

As a result of the start of the Arab-Israel War of 1947-49, the situation only worsened.

^

Palestinian Rights in the Balfour Declaration?

 I just came across this article:

The Balfour Declaration in International Law

which concludes so:

"The Balfour Declaration may have continuing legal relevance—not as a promise of a Jewish national home, which has already been fulfilled, but as a promise for Palestinian rights."

I was so taken aback that I wrote the author so:

If the term used to describe other persons than Jews was simply "non-Jewish communities", which indicated Arabs, Armenians, Syrians, Moslems, Christians and what not, and in the subsequent League of Nations Mandate, that phrase becomes "the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion" while the terms "the Jewish national home"  and "a national home for the Jewish people" are used, and if, in the 1919 agreement between Faisal and Weizmann we find the use of "the Arab State and Palestine", what would provide you any basis for assuming there were/are "Palestinan rights" that apply specifically to a social or national group of Arabs?

To be continued.

^ 

Petach Tikva 1886 or, Arabs Refuse to Acknowledge the Law

From an academic article (anti-Zionist by the way):

There was a dispute over grazing rights between the peasants of Yahudiyya and the settlers of Petah Tikva, who either did not know or did not care that it was customary in Palestine for herds to graze on fields after they were harvested, regardless of formal ownership. This dispute escalated into an argument over settlers’ access to their fields. The peasants plowed up a road to prevent settlers’ access to their more distant fields. 

On 28 March 1886 asettler rode his horse on the road. Consequently, peasants stole the horse. Settlers retaliated by expropriating ten mules from Yahudiyya. The next day villagers of Yahudiyya attacked Petah Tikva, wounding five settlers, one of whom subsequently died, and seized all the settlers’ livestock. The kaymakam of Jaffa dispatched soldiers who arrested thirty-one peasants.

Mandel, Shafir, and Khalidi agree that the underlying cause of the dispute was ownership and use of the land.

Peasants of Umm Labis and Yahudiyya had lost their lands to two Orthodox Christian moneylenders in Jaffa after defaulting on loans. The moneylenders retained the villagers as tenants. Subsequently, local authorities seized the lands because the villagers failed to pay their taxes. Those lands were then sold to the settlers of Petah Tikva. At first the settlers could not work all the 14,200 dunams they purchased and rented some back to the peasants. But in 1884, after reestablishing Petah Tikva, the settlers occupied more of the land, disre-garding in the process the local norm that someone who prepared land to plant a summer crop thereby acquired the right to plant a (normally more lucrative) winter crop. The peasants belatedly realized that they had not only lost title but also usufruct of the land.

^

"Palestine" as Part of Syria

From the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry Report of 1946:

As early as 1920, Palestine Arab opposition to Zionism and desire for self-government led to a threat to public security. Propaganda for union with an independent Syria led in April of that year to three days of rioting in Jerusalem, in which Arab mobs fell upon Jews with sticks, stones and knives. 

Note: not "Palestinian Arab" aka Arabs of a Palestine nationality but Arabs of Palestine.

^ 

Maybe A Smirky Laugh, Too?

The farce gets more farcical as the Palestinian Authority says legal proceedings will soon start against British government:

alleged Foreign Minister Riyad Malki said that legal proceedings against the British government will be soon brought before British, European and international courts to lift the injustice inflicted on the Palestinian people by the Balfour Declaration.

He said in a statement that the alleged State of Palestine "made every effort possible to persuade the British government to abandon plans to celebrate the centennial of the Balfour Declaration because such a celebration shows lack of sensitivity to the Palestinian people.”

However, because these efforts have failed to yield results and because of its moral and national obligation towards its people, the Foreign and Expatriates Ministry will soon act to bring legal proceedings before the British courts against the British government to remedy its mistake of 100 years, Malki said.

May I suggest to the British Government and others one line of defense:

at the time there was no concept of  a "Palestinian people".  Indeed there was no "Palestine" in recognized borders and there surely was no state o that name.

Moreover, the so-called "Palestinian people" then referred to themselves as Southern Syrians even in 1926.

And in addition, the Arabs welcomed the Declaration and Faisal signed an agreement to that effect.

Of course, the lawyers could simply stand up in court and start laughing.  It needn't be too smirky, though.

___________

P.S.

As someone wrote to me now:

They are suing the wrong people, the Declaration was only an aspirational letter. If anyone is to be sued it would be the League of Nations.

^

Reunify Palestinian Arabs in Their Already Existing State

Received from the PRPAJ- the Party for the Implementation of a Marshall Plan for the Reunification of the Palestinian Arabs in their Existing State in Trans-Jordan

TWO STATES FOR TWO PEOPLES

ON TWO BANKS OF THE JORDAN RIVER

The Land of Israel belongs to the Jews

Those who call themselves “Palestinians” belong in Jordan

The “Jordanians” and the “Palestinians” are by their own claims, one and the same people, with the same language, religion and origins. They are therefore entitled to one state only.

This Palestinian Arab State already exists, since 1920, in Trans-Jordan.

Implement a Marshall Plan for the Reunification of the

Palestinian Arabs in their Existing State in Trans-Jordan

In 1919, in the wake of the dismantlement of the Ottoman Empire, the League of Nations mandated the British Government to establish the Jewish National Home in Palestine, which comprised the territories on both banks of the Jordan River. Instead, in contravention of international law and basic human decency, the perfidious British despoiled the Jewish People, and literally stole from them 77% of the area of Palestine, known from Time Immemorial, as the Land of Israel. They handed over Trans-Jordan to the Hashemites, a Bedouin tribe that had been ousted from Saudi Arabia. However, by so doing, they in fact established an exclusive Arab Palestinian State, from which the Jews were banished and barred.

The Hashemite Minority Rule to this day denies the Palestinian majority their legitimate rights. It has been the root cause of the “Palestinian Calamity”. During “Black” September 1970, the Hashemites slaughtered some 20,000 Palestinians’ and expelled hundreds of thousands more. These Palestinian terrorist gangs, led by Arafat, set up a “state within a state” in Lebanon and organized the worldwide terrorist networks.

Hashemite minority rule is the real cause of the “dispossession” of the Palestinians. Not Israel. For the past forty years, the Arabs have turned this lie into the pretext and battle cry of Islamonazi imperialism and terrorism throughout the world. However, it is the USA and Europe that they plan to exploit and plunder, after destroying Israel. And they have been given a very good head start by the Chamberlains and traitors amongst us.

Don’t say you didn’t know !!!

In order to end, once and for all, the hoax of Palestinian “homelessness”, and to give back to the Palestinians their rights to self-determination, in their existing state,

it is incumbent upon the International Community to

END THE HASHEMITE MINORITY REGIME IN JORDAN and

RECOGNIZE DE JURE, THE DE FACTO

ARAB PALESTINIAN STATE in TRANS-JORDAN

* Moreover, the Arabs have 22 vast states, from which the Jews were banished and barred

* The Jews do not wish to rule over a single Arab

* The Jews are entitled to, and must have, one tiny state all of their own, without Arabs

The Jordan River is the only just, viable, logical and defensible border

between the Jewish State of Israel and the Arab Palestinian State of Jordan.

Demand the Implementation of a Marshall Plan for the Reunification of

the Palestinian Arabs in their Existing State in Trans-Jordan NOW!!!

Join the Revolution to Save the State of Israel. Be pro-active. Send this message as a petition to your elected representatives, your local organizations, the media, your synagogues, churches, and friends.
Post it on your blogs, social networks and twitters.

For more information E:mecodems@netvision.net.il

^

Jobs, Education True Goals of Arab Youth Resident in Judea & Samaria

IMRA has alerted me to the results, ver-r-r-r-y ionteresting results, from a new poll of opinion amongst Arabs resident in Judea and Samaria, which include these among them:-

To you personally, which of the following issues is causing the most concern in your life?
Please rank from 1 (being most concerning) to 8 (being least concerning)

Finding a job 35.2%
Covering the expenses of my education 20.6%
Corruption in public life 12.9%
My personal freedoms 11.1%
The expenses of marriage including housing 6.8%
Occupation 5.8%
Unstable social/psychological situation 3.7%
Dealing with boredom there is nothing fun to do 2.6%
The consequences of the Wall 1.5%

In your opinion, which one of the following is the best means to reach an independent Palestinian state?

to reach an agreement between the two parties 19.6%
int'l conference that imposes a settlement 16.1%
A non-violent popular uprising 13.4%
Armed/militant confrontations 19.0%
A mix of non-violent and militant means 30.5%
Other 0.7%
Don't know 0.7%

The source details:

Results of an Opinion Poll among Palestinian Youth
Publication Date: 1 February 2012
Fieldwork: 15-17 January 2012

Sample Size: 1200 Palestinian Youth in the West Bank & Gaza (18-30 years old) | Margin of error: + 3 %

Arab World for Research & Development
Ramallah – Gaza, Palestine
Tele-fax: 00970-2-2950957/8
E-mail: awrad@awrad.org
Website: http://www.awrad.org/

^

More "Inventiveness"

Daoud Kuttab, who I have debated, has an opinion piece, "We Are Palestinians", in the Int'l Herald Tribune.

I picked one * inventive sentence from it:

Palestinian Arabs attempted to become independent after the British mandate ended, but the British pledged Palestine simultaneously to Jews and Arabs.

Note:

a) the "attempt" was prior to the end.

b) and it was launching a war against Jewish civilians on November 30, 1947, on the morrow of the UN recommended partition plan to establsih an Arab state and a Jewish state.  In fact, attacks against Jews had begun a few months earlier when it became apparent that the UN was going to decide something.

c) the British had not "pledged Palestine simultaneously to Jews and Arabs".  In the first instance, that phrase belongs to the 1920s.  Secondly, there was no simultaneous promise.  There were parallel promises.  And the 1947 promise was, as noted, of the United Nations.

d) in any case, what is TransJordan, now the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, if not an Arab state in Palestine?

The Jews and the Arabs were awarded states.  We took our opportunity despite yet another whittling down of the terriroty of the Jewish national home.

All the Arabs wanted to do was to deny Jews a state on any territory.  It turned out to be the precedent of the "suicide bomber" phenomenon of a later period.  They preferred to lose a chance at statehood just so the Jews should not achieve their national aspirations.

Kuttab is engaged, as most Arabs who consider themselves "Palestinians" are, in inventiveness - either relating to their own history or in relating to Jewish history and heritage.

And inventiveness is not enough to build a society, construct governmental institutions or formulate and carry through economic policies.

But it works well on the pages of a hostile press to Israel.

_________________

P.S.  I just caught this from Jerry Auerbach:

...Palestinians plunder modern Jewish history — and tragedy — for their own purposes. They have cast themselves as the new “Jews,” who are oppressed by Israeli “Nazis.” Palestinian teen-agers, comparing themselves to Anne Frank, claim to suffer from a “holocaust.”  The recent Palestinian flotillas to Israel have been modeled on the Exodus and other refugee ships that tried to transport desperate Jews to Palestine before independence. In the Palestinian version, Israel becomes the oppressive British government that prevented Jews from reaching their promised land.  With their appropriations from Jewish history, ironically, Palestinians have inadvertently cast themselves as the biblical Jacob, stealing the birthright...it is a fragile foundation for building a nation, as the Palestinians continue to discover...

_______________________

*

Another

The historian Rashid Khalidi, in his book “Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness,”...traces the development of the Palestinians’ identity to the late Ottoman area, “when they had multiple loyalties to their religion, the Ottoman state, the Arabic language, and the emerging identity of Arabism, as well as their country and local and familial foci.”

So, all was new.  But that still does not adequately explain the demand as late as 1922 to be considered Southern Syrians even after the Mandate was being finalized and the reality of the Jewish National Home was being fixed.


^

Which Is The More Silly Statement?

This one:-

"I believe that the Jewish people have the right to have a state," Gingrich said in the interview. "Remember, there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we've had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, who are historically part of the Arab community."

He added, "And they had a chance to go many places and for a variety of political reasons, we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940s. I think it's tragic."

or this one:-

Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said Gingrich needs to reexamine the history books.

"The Palestinian people inhabited the land since the dawn of history, and intend to remain in it until the end times," Fayyad said Saturday at an event in the West Bank city of Ramallah. "People like Gingrich must consult history, as it seems that all what he knows about the region is the history of the Ottoman era."

Source

Of course, you also have this by one Jamal Kanj:

Israel was built on a web of myths: God was made a real estate landlord granting land ownership to Jews only; history became a 3,000 years old parable anecdotal tale, and geography was molested to suit the modern Zionist vision. The Zionist's media engine took advantage of the West's unawareness of the diverse Arab world's geography...

P.S.

Read these:
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2011/12/palestinian-arabs-are-jebusites-rofl.html

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2011/12/invented-people-in-18th-century.html

http://www.danielpipes.org/8025/the-year-the-arabs-discovered-palestine

http://www.danielpipes.org/352/the-year-the-arabs-discovered-palestine


^

More Progress on American Political Front

As my readers know, I and my friends have been engaged these past decades in attempting to realign strategic thinking on the part of the US administrations, Congress and State Department officials. As American citizens, we view this as part of the democratic process which, of course, is employed by many other immigrant groups and, to be clear, is more moral than what many of our local NGOs attempt to do, with foreign money, here in Israel.

Recently, five congressmen visited the area (in the 1980s we even had Senators - Helms, Hecht and Furenberger) out here in Yesha and we have been in House corridors.

Several Republican candidates have spoken out forcefully (1 & 2) on the issue of whether the Jewish communities are legal and whether Judea and Samaria should be retained by Israel.

Now this story:

...Mr. Gingrich suggested that he might break with it [the so-called "two-state" solution], calling Palestinians an “invented” people and the current stalled peace process “delusional.”...He also said the leadership of the Palestinian Authority, which has pledged to respect Israel’s right to exist, really harbors “an enormous desire to destroy Israel.”

In his comments, Mr. Gingrich has gone beyond the other Republican presidential candidates, who have condemned President Obama for proposing that Israel’s 1967 borders, with mutually agreed land swaps, should be the basis for negotiating peace with the Palestinians.

...Discussing the origin of the state of Israel in the 1940s, Mr. Gingrich said: “Remember, there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs and were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places.”...

...Mr. Gingrich, who is leading in recent polls, has repeatedly criticized the Obama administration for bending too far in favor of the Palestinians. He was applauded at a candidates’ forum on Wednesday by a coalition of Jewish Republicans for characterizing the administration’s view as “it’s always Israel’s fault — no matter how bad the other side is.”

And then you have Martin S. Indyk reacting in hysterical fashion:

...if Mr. Gingrich believed that Palestinians did not have a right to an independent state, “as implied in his language, then he’s not pro-Israel at all.”

as well as another "Establishment" figure:

David A. Harris, chief executive of the National Jewish Democratic Council, an American Jewish group, said Mr. Gingrich’s views reversed decades of American policy by both Democratic and Republican administrations. “This is as clear a demonstration as one needs that he’s not ready for prime time,” Mr. Harris said.

But Gingrinch seems to be quite cognizant of the political realities:

...“I mean, we have an armed truce with a Palestinian Authority that’s relatively weak,” he said. “And on its flank is a Hamas authority, which may become relatively weak because it can’t deliver anything. But both of which represent an enormous desire to destroy Israel.”

He described Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, as denying Israel’s right to exist.

“You have Abbas, who says in the United Nations, ‘We do not necessarily concede Israel’s right to exist,’ ” Mr. Gingrich said. “So you have to start with this question: ‘Who are you making peace with?’ ”

Sheldon Adelson seems to be assisting.

Seems, a major change is in the works. It will seep down and finally, a true discourse on the possibilities for peace and the requirments of security will be fixed.

_____________

The clip:

_____________

The clarification:

Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond said afterward that the candidate was merely referring to the "decades-long history that has surrounded this issue," and has long supported the concept of Palestinian statehood. "Gingrich supports a negotiated peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, which will necessarily include agreement between Israel and the Palestinians over the borders of a Palestinian state," Hammond said in a statement. "However, to understand what is being proposed and negotiated you have to understand decades of complex history -- which is exactly what Gingrich was referencing during the recent interview with Jewish TV."

But

on March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zuheir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

Quote:
The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan. Unquote.

And this from Daniel Pipes:

Everyone from the PLO to a Mitt Romney spokesman jumped on Gingrich for this assertion, but he happens to be absolutely correct: no Arabic-speaking Muslims identified themselves as "Palestinian" until 1920, when, in rapid order this appellation and identity was adopted by the Muslim Arabs living in the British mandate of Palestine.
So why get angry at Gingrich?

Go Ging!

Gingrich sticks by Palestinian comment, draws rebukes from GOP candidates

NEW YORK (JTA) -- Republican presidential front-runner Newt Gingrich stood by his assertion that the Palestinians are an "invented people," drawing criticism from other GOP candidates.

"Is what I said factually correct? Yes. Is it historically true? Yes," Gingrich said during a GOP debate Saturday night in Iowa. "We are in a situation where every day rockets are fired into Israel while the United States -- the current administration -- tries to pressure the Israelis into a peace process."

"Somebody ought to have the courage to tell the truth,” he continued. "These people are terrorists, they teach terrorism in their schools."...

^

Ethnic Cleansing in "Palestine"

One of the many charges against the Zionist enterprise in the Land of Israel has/is been: ethnic cleansing.

Never mind that Jews were those ethnically cleansed during the Mandate period, from Tel Chai to Hebron, Jenin, Shchem, Gaza, Hulda to the Old City of Jerusalem, Gush Etzion, Bet HaAraha, Neveh Yaakov & Atarot and other places.  What about the Arab conquest and occupation beginning in 638?

Here:

During the Arabic period, the Land of Israel was of a low priority for the Arabic rulers. The Umayyad government centre was in the Arab Peninsula at first, moving to Damascus in 660. The rulers of the Abbas dynasty moved their centre to Baghdad, while the Fatimid and the Seljuks ruled from Egypt. The Land of Israel was an occupied territory and a source of revenue from tax and land confiscations that benefited the rulers. In his article “Status of the Land of Israel under Muslim Rule”, Prof. Moshe Gill describes it as “a gold mine for Muslims”: From the year 670 to 975, the Arabs collected from 304,000 dinars per year (during the 820’s) to 850,000 dinars per year (during the 860’s). The average annual tax collected was about 400,000 dinars. Many of the rural settlements were deserted and destroyed and the cultivated area shrank in size. Many of the Jews and Christians were farmers, particularly those in small settlements. Jews worked also in pottery manufacturing, smithies, glass manufacturing, mats making, textiles, flour mills, and soap manufacturing, as well as commerce. The constant fighting, however, hurt trade and manufacturing, the economy deteriorated and the country’s population was impoverished. There is no data about the number of Jews living in the country on the eve of the Arabic occupation. Based on his analysis of various factors, Michael Assaf estimates that their number then was 150,000--200,000. During the Arabic occupation, in the 7th, 8th, and 9th centuries, Jews from communities in the Arab Peninsula, North Africa, and Babylon returned to Israel and its Jewish population increased slightly, but from correspondence preserved in the Cairo Genizah we learn that the security situation in the country made many leave, particularly during the Fatimid period. Documents from the Cairo Genizah presented by Prof. Moshe Gill contain evidence of Jewish communities in Israel, particularly from the 10th to the 11th centuries. In the Galilee, Tiberias was the centre of Jewish spirituality, with several synagogues and two communities: Jews from Babylon and Jews from Jerusalem. There were also Jews in Acre, Haifa, Gush Halav, Pequi’in, Dalton, Kfar Cana, Kadesh Naphtali, Tzipori, Kfar Hananya, ‘Ivlin, Kfar Mandi, Safed, ‘Akhbara, and Biriya. According to the 10th century Arabic Geographer Al Muqadassi, there were large Jewish settlements in Gush Halav and Kadesh Naphtali, and Jews lived also in Ramle, Hebron, the coastal cities, Tzo’ar (near the Dead Sea) and Eilat. Ramle was the largest Jewish centre in the South, with three communities, 2 synagogues, and 5000 Jews. The community in Hebron was well organised and had a synagogue near the Cave of Machpelah. During the Arab occupation Jews lived in Caesarea, Jaffa, Ashkelon, and Raffiah.


The Genizah letters also tell of deteriorating security under Fatimid rule as a result of 60 years of constant fighting against extremist Shiite elements, the Byzantines, and Bedouin assaults. Letters describe horrors committed by Bedouins in Jerusalem and Ramle. In his study Michael Assaf mentions Jewish settlements in the Negev and notes that Eilat was called “City of the Jews” by the Geographer Al Bakri (d. 1094). Assaf points out that in addition to coastal cities and Tiberias, Raqat and Hammat, other Upper Galilee Jewish places mentioned in the Cairo Genizah documents include the Fort of Dan, Ba’al Gad, ‘Akal, Zeitoun, ‘Alma, Al-‘Alawiya, and Tirtzah, as well as Jerusalem, Hebron, and Ramle in Judea. Assaf mentions several factors that caused the significant decline of Jewish population numbers at the end of the Arab occupation due to desertion, which was caused by the unstable security conditions.

Prof Moshe Gill summarised the Jewish situation in Israel during the Arab occupation as evident from the Genizah documents. Genizah letters describe “generations of decline and impoverishment in body and spirit in the wake of the extraordinary troubles of the times and the transformation of the Land of Israel into a constant battle field. The Jewish settlement fought for its actual physical existence”. But the letters also reflect “the continuance of Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel through generations of Arab occupation. This settlement was a direct descendent of the Jewish settlement of ancient times”.

...In her article “The Role of the Conquest in Shaping the Layout of Settlement in the Land of Israel during the Early Muslim Period”, Dr Milka Levi-Rubin determined that the main change in population composition took place in the coastal cities. The change was evident in the almost total desertion of the coastal cities by their Christian population as the Arabic army approached. The Christian population was, until then, the economic, social and cultural back bone of the country. Most of those leaving belonged to the elite affluent, Greek-speaking classes, and those staying behind were mostly Aramaic-speaking lower classes who had immigrated to the Land of Israel from what is now Syria and Lebanon.


...Yoram Zafrir described in his study “The Arabic Conquest and the Process of Population Impoverishment in the Land of Israel” how “during the Muslim period, and generally through the Middle Ages, a most significant process of decline in the population of the Land of Israel took place”. Zafrir brings archaeological evidence that show that the process reached its climax during the Abbasside period, from the mid 8th century, although signs of population decline are apparent already in the Umayyad period. The reasons for this crisis, according to Zafrir, were:


In the first place, neglect: once the government centre moved to Baghdad, the government did not allocate resources for the country’s prosperity. Secondly, the trend of replacing the Christian administration with an Arab-Muslim one lowered its efficiency, while the anti-Christian sentiments drove Christians out of the country. Zafrir studied the Arabic population in the country based on the Nitzana Papyri (late 7th century) and M. Kokhavi’s archaeological survey. These sources attest to the desertion of Arabic settlements in the Negev Mountain area due to the difficult living conditions, water and land shortages, insecurity caused by Bedouin pillage raids, Bedouins taking over settlements and populating them on-and-off, and demolishing buildings for their construction materials as seen fit.

According to this archaeological survey there were 470 settlements in the southern area in the Byzantine period, and only 76 remaining during the Arabic period. Fifty of them were located in the Jordan Valley, where desertion was halted thanks to irrigation works carried out by the Umayyad government. Around Sde Bokker, 8 settlements remained during the Arabic period out of 45 that existed during the Byzantine period. The Byzantines converted the inhabitants of the Judean desert to Christianity, but the population left with the collapse of Byzantine rule because, contrary to the Byzantine government’s custom of reducing taxes and providing protection during times of drought, the Arab-Muslim rule was only interested in collecting taxes. The deserted settlements were taken by Bedouins who continued their nomadic life-style.

Prof. Sharon determined in his study “Processes of Destruction and Nomadisation in the Land of Israel” that Bedouin invasions for settlement began only in the mid 9th century, increasing around the mid-10th century and particularly through the 11th century. During the 9th century, Bedouin tribes settled in the Negev area, and from the mid-10th century, and particularly in the 11th century, Bedouin tribes invaded the Jordan Valley. Throughout the Arabic Muslim period other Bedouin tribes conducted raids into the country, and for some time also ruled sections of it (article on the Bedouin invasions of the Land of Israel will be published latter).

Michael Assaf quotes a report by the Arab Geographer Al Ya’akubi from the end of the 9th century about the settlement of Arabs and Persians in the Galilee, around Ramle-Lydda, in the coastal cities, Nablus, and Yavne. He mentions 6 Arabic tribes that settled in the country. Assaf brings similar reports of 10th century Arabic historians. The picture emerging from the Arabic sources is of Arabic settlement in estates confiscated from the Byzantines in the Western Galilee, settlement in Tiberias and the Eastern Galilee, around Ramle-Lydda and in the Jordan Valley. According to Assaf the Arabic sources tended to obscure the presence of Christians and Jews in the country and exaggerate the extent of Arabic settlement. The 10th century Arabic Geographer Al Mouqadassi reported the presence of Samaritans and non-Arabic Christians.

Prof. Moshe Gill notes that with the Abbasside conquest the presence in the country of the tribes that served as garrisons was limited, their allowances were cancelled and they were relocated to Egypt and Iraq. The tribe Bannu Al Ash’ar (originally from the South of the Arab Peninsula) resided in Tiberias during the Abbasside period. The Arabic author Al Mas’oudi wrote that from the end of the 10th century to the mid 11th century there was only one mosque in Tiberias compared to 3 synagogues, attesting to the small number of Muslims in the city. Muslims began settling in Hebron only from the 10th century. Muslims were living in Eqron, which had a large mosque. In Nablus, Arabic tribes were living in the 9th century alongside the Samaritans. In Bet Shean the population included Arabs as well as non-Muslims.

In his research on the Crusader period, Ronnie Ellenblum determined that, as a result of the decline in Samaritan population in north Samaria at the end of the Byzantine period, Bedouin tribes began moving into that area during the Arabic Muslim occupation. Their process of permanent settlement, however, was slow and was not yet completed at the time of the Crusader conquest.

In a lecture on Samaria, Dr. Levi-Rubbin determined that Arabic historians give evidence of significant Muslim settlement in Samaria, side by side with the Samaritans, during the 9th century, and that Arabic penetration into the area began in the 7th century. In Saladin’s time, i.e., in the 12th century, Arabs were the majority in Samaria.

In his research “The Coastal Cities of the Land of Israel during the Arabic Period, 640 – 1099”, Amikam Elad states that an effort was made by the Arabic rulers to encourage Arab and Persian soldiers to settle in the coastal cities, by handing out land and homes that had been deserted. Mosques were built in the coastal cities and Muslim clerics opened schools for Islam...

And as for "Palestine" -

Arabization meant imposing the Arabic language, culture, and customs, but did not include converting the population to Islam.


The Arab conquerors did not call the country Palestine, but rather Al Sham, meaning “left”, because the Land of Israel is to the left of the rising sun. This term included Syria as well.

The Umayyad rulers maintained the Byzantine administrative division: Palestina Prima, which included Judea, Samaria, and part of the coast, and whose capital was Caesarea, was called Hijaz Filastin(Hijaz means district)/ The Capital was first moved from Caesarea to Lydda, and in 717 was moved to Ramla, the only city the Arabs built (in 716) in the Land of Israel.

Palestina Secunda, which included the Galilee, the Sea of Galilee, and part of the Jordan Valley and whose capital was Tiberias, was named Hijaz al Urdun, i.e., the Jordan District. Jerusalem’s Roman name, Aelia Capitolina, was maintained for a while, then changed to Bet Al-Maqdas (‘Beit Hamikdash’ – the Temple) and then to Al Quds.

The Arabs did not have an educated class that could take over the administrative system, nor did the Umayyad welcome any shake-ups until their rule was stabilised. The Greek language, therefore, remained as the official language and Christian officials continued to administer the country’s affairs. The top echelon, however, were the Arabs, who gave themselves estates – villages that provided their income.

The Arabization process began only at the end of the Umayyad period, as evident in the gradual take over of the administration by Arab administrators, the use of Arabic for official matters, the replacement of Byzantine coinage with Arabic one, and the spreading of the Arabic culture as a way of living...

Amazing, eh?

Never trust an Arab or pro-Arab propagandist.

^

Palestine Was Meant for the Jews and - When Palestine Was Syria

Here is a clipping from the New York Times newspaper, dated September 1, 1921, yes, 1921:

As you can read, the Arab delegation had two demands which they submitted to the League of Nations and to US President Harding:

a) France should not be awarded a Mandate over Syria

and

b) Palestine should not become a national home for the Jews.

Moreover, the telegram of protest to President Harding demanded that "Syria and Palestine should form one country" and that is based on a racial principle, that the country as formed, is one that only Arabs inhabit the land, Jews being only 7%.

In other words, minorities don't count.

But more important, a full year, at the least, prior to the League of Nations decision awarding Great Britain the Mandate over Palestine, all the civilized world, over 50 countries knew that Arabs thought Syria and Palestine one country, i.e., there really wasn't, at that time, a separate "Palestinian nationalism" and even more important, the Arabs knew quite well that Palestine was going to be the national home for the Jews, even over their opposition.

No mistake was made. Nor error. All knew that Palestine was meant for the Jews.

^

There Was Arab Settlement in Palestine

CDL Press has published a new book entitled SHAPING THE MIDDLE EAST - JEWS, CHRISTIANS, AND MUSLIMS IN AN AGE OF TRANSITION 400-­800 C.E.edited by Kenneth G. Holum and Hayim Lapin

Among the subjects covered by the essays:
Caesarea Palaestinae: A Paradigmatic Transition? by Kenneth G. Holum, the University of Maryland

QaysŽriyah as an Early Islamic Settlement by Donald Whitcomb, the University of Chicago
Archaeological Evidence for the Sasanian Persian Invasion of Jerusalem by Jodi Magness, the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

The Province of Arabia during the Persian Invasion (613-629/630) by Michele Piccirillo, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Jerusalem
Islamic Period: The Cases of Jerusalem and Ramla by Gideon Avni, the Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem

Changes in the Settlement Pattern of Palestine Following the Arab Conquest by Milka Levy-Rubin, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem

Aspects of the Rabbinic Movement in Palestine, 500­- 800 C.E. by Hayim Lapin, University of Maryland
Arab Christians and the Program to Claim the Land for Islam by Sidney H. Griffith, The Catholic University of America

The Muslim Appropriation of a Biblical Text: The Messianic Dimensions of Isaiah 21:6­7 by
John C. Reeves, University of North Carolina, Charlotte
 
Interesting.
 
And talking about "Arab Settlement", try this list.


^

Yes, The So-Called "Palestinian Arabs" Are Canaanites

An "alternative history narrative" has been promoted by Arab propagandists and their fellow-travellers. 

The Arabs who reside in the territory of the former Mandate of Palestine, which dissolved on May 15, 1948 after the UN recommended on November 29, 1947 it be partitioned as a Jewish state, and Arab state and a special regime which was rejected by the Arabs, claim to be the direct descendents of the pagan peoples of the Bible who lived in this region 4000 years ago. The ramifications of this are critical to any peace process.

In August 1996, an official "Culture festival" was held at Sebastya (p. 163) with Arab youth dresses as "Canaanites". Others appeared as Girgashites, Ammorites and Perizites, et al.

As explained in this article by David Wenkel who holds a master's degree in Christian thought from Trinity International University in Deerfield, Illinois:

Many Palestinian Arabs, including such prominent figures as Yasir Arafat and Faisal Husseini, claim that Palestinians descended from the Canaanite tribe of the Jebusites. Such declarations should not surprise. History is political. Many Middle Eastern cultures and states retroactively claim roots to the ancient tribes and empires in order to legitimize their modern nationalism...How significant, then, is the Palestinian-Jebusite link? Connections between modern Palestinians and ancient Jebusites would trump the Jewish claim by predating it and legitimize the Palestinian claim to Jerusalem and Israel. The political and diplomatic impact is clear, especially as Palestinian leaders insist that Israel forfeit sovereignty over Jerusalem....

And in further detail:

The claim to Jebusite heritage within the Palestinian community is a recent construct... Andrew S. Buchanan, then a doctoral candidate in international relations from St. Andrews University, Scotland, framed this claim to "uninterrupted continuity" with Jebusites and Canaanites...The Palestinian-Jebusite linkage first appeared in the Arabic literature. Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian activist and historian, wrote that in the mid- or late 1960s, Palestinian nationalism developed a historiography that "anachronistically read back into the history of Palestine over the past few centuries, and even millennia, a nationalist consciousness and identity that are in fact relatively modern." In an accompanying footnote, he wrote that this historical "outlook" created a "predilection for seeing in peoples such as the Canaanites, Jebusites, Amorites, and Philistines the lineal ancestors of the modern Palestinians."...

...the 1978 Al-Mawsu'at Al-Filastinniya (Palestinian encyclopedia)...declared, "The Palestinians [to be] the descendants of the Jebusites, who are of Arab origin," and described Jerusalem as "an Arab city because its first builders were the Canaanite Jebusites, whose descendants are the Palestinians...By 2001, what Khalidi once attributed to anachronistic revisionism, he came to promote when he attached his name to an article published by the American Committee for Jerusalem which declared, without corroborating evidence, that "According to a number of historians and scholars, many of the Arabs of Jerusalem today, indeed the majority of Palestinian Arabs, are descendants of the ancient Jebusites and Canaanites." Khalidi now argued that Palestinians did not descend from those who arrived with Muhammad's armies, but rather, "native Palestinians, both Christian and Muslim Arabs, are of a mixed race whose connection with the land reaches back into very early history."...

PASSIA, an official Arab body, has a rather unique Jerusalem chronology which 'establishes' the Jebusite basis the predates the Jews but also links it to the Arabs by a simple trick: it minimizes and ignores Jewish existence in any form.

(And, by the way, read this dispute.)

I have dealt in a series of posts (here; and here; and here and see other references there) on the "In Canaanite Eyes" theory of Nur Masalha.

But perhaps there is something to all this hocus-pocus.   Maybe some Arabs are descended from pagan Canaanites, like those that engaged in human sacrifice. Some dispute that practice.  Others do not (and here; and also here; as well as here).

The act of ritual murder committed on the Fogel family in Itamar on Shabbat night was "worthy" of Arabs who champion their Canaanite roots.  The barbarism, the immorality, the inherent evil in such an act will forever signify the futility of coexistence and peace with such people.

And the only hope is that they will disappear just as the Canaanite and Jebusite and Ammorite civilizations did.

^

On The Usage of "Palestinian Arabs" in the 1920s

The term "Palestinian Arabs" is ubiquitous today.  It means there is a "Palestine", and some people, too many, presume there always was a "Palestine", and that it is/was a state, a very real geo-political entity and that it was Arab.  These Arabs that were "Palestinian" always existed as a national group.  And then, the Jews came and stole it away.  That's a very short version.

"Palestinian" is now applied only to Arabs, as if there is/was a political, social and demographic identity of Arabs as distinctly "Palestinian". Not Syrian. Not Jordanian (more on this later) or any other Arab community.

As here:

The Palestinian people, (Arabic: الشعب الفلسطيني‎, ash-sha`b al-filasTīni) also referred to as Palestinians or Palestinian Arabs (Arabic: الفلسطينيون‎, al-filasTīnīyyūn; Arabic: العرب الفلسطينيون‎, al-`Arab al-filasTīnīyyūn), are an Arabic-speaking Mediterranean people with family origins in the geographic region of Palestine.

Taken all together, the object in the usage of "Palestinian Arabs" is first and foremost not connected with Arabs but to negate and deny any Jewish connection or rights to the geographical entity known as the Land of Israel (Eretz-Yisrael).

To his credit,

historian Rashid Khalidi...cautions against the efforts of some Palestinian nationalists to "anachronistically" read back into history a nationalist consciousness that is in fact "relatively modern".

[35] Khalidi, Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness. Columbia University Press. 1997, p. 19–21.

[36] Khalidi, 1997, p. 149.

In response to this semantic struggle over such a terminology, one response has been to deny in toto the term as in this opinion, that The Palestinian People Do Not Exist:

Way back on March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.

That's pretty clear, isn't it?...It demonstrates conclusively that the Palestinian nationhood argument is the real strategic deception – one geared to set up the destruction of Israel.

I've said it before and I will say it again, in the history of the world, Palestine has never existed as a nation. The region known as Palestine was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and, briefly, by the British after World War I. The British agreed to restore at least part of the land to the Jewish people as their ancestral homeland. It was never ruled by Arabs as a separate nation.

Another element is to ask when did the term come into use. What was its history.  Some claim in the early 1920s, especially after the 4th or 5th (1921; 1922) Arab Congresses (see here; and also here).  Into the early 1920s, for sure, the local, indigenous Arabs viewed their status as Syrians, and referred to themselves as "Southern Syrians" (see here; ) where it is made clear:

"The first Palestinian Arab congress (al-Muʾtamar al-Arabi al-Filastini) met in Jerusalem from 27 January to 9 February 1919...A majority sought the incorporation of Palestine into an independent Syrian state, and the delegates strongly denounced French claims to a mandate over Syria...The congress issued a statement which included the statement: 'We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds.' "

That there was a recognition, even amongst the most nationalist Arabs that two different entities exist can be understood from the Agreement Between Emir Feisal and Dr. Weizmann signed on 3 January, 1919 in the presence of Lawrence of Arabia. "Palestine" was something other than the "Arab State" to be awarded to the Arabs.  "Palestine" was for the Jews.

See the text:

His Royal Highness the Emir Feisal, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hedjaz, and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization, mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realizing that the surest means of working out the consummation of their natural aspirations is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine, and being desirous further of confirming the good understanding which exists between them, have agreed upon the following:

Article I

The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding, and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in the respective territories.

Article II

Immediately following the completion of the deliberations of the Peace Conference, the definite boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a Commission to be agreed upon by the parties hereto.

That is fairly clear.  Actually, most assuredly so.

I certainly agree that a "Palestinian" Arab nationality used to oppose the Zionist character of the country is a later development, but not in 1964 as some claim.  In reviewing historical material, I came across the usage of the term "Palestiian Arabs" early on and specifically as identifying Arabs, as opposed to Jews/Zionists, as "Palestinians".  The material is the speeches made in the British Parliament and the House of Lords and shows a political usage of the term.  However, it is definitely not clear-cut.

In the first instance, most of the speakers employing the term are anti-Zionists.  But not all.  In the second instance, while it is used to designate Arabs as opposed to Jews as well as Zionists, the examples I found include the term being used to signify Jews, non-Jews in the area and others.

So, I include below various examples that display that usage but also other usages relating to Jews, Germans or others or any inhabitant/resident of the Palestine Mandate as early as 1918 with many quite obviously denoting Arabs as "Palestinians" and not Jews.

The Examples:

June 25, 1918

Major Earl WINTERTON asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what facilities have been given to the Palestinian and Syrian political leaders now in Egypt to visit Palestine?

That refers solely to Arabs.

On June 29, 1920

I am quite aware that in many quarters it is extremely bad form to take any interest in former enemy aliens...I have a profound sympathy for any civilians, whether they be of British or German or any other nationality, who have to undergo two years' internment...these Palestinian Germans are being detained by the desire of the Zionists in order that their property in Palestine may be acquired

On April 29, 1920

Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) in his famous declaration in December, 1917, in regard to the settlement of Palestine on a Zionist basis...I think, however, that it is most important that two considerations in connection with this settlement should be presented to the House and the country. One is that the rights of the existing Palestinian inhabitants, especially the Moslems and Christians, the resident cultivators, should be carefully safeguarded. The vast majority of the resident cultivators of Palestine are very poor men. Ninety per cent. are either Christian or Moslem. The Jews form less than 10 per cent, of the whole of the inhabitants, and of that 10 per cent. the majority are in the towns engaged in the small retail trade, money-lending and occupations of that kind. Therefore, if there is to be any settlement of Jews from abroad, I think the rights of the existing cultivators must be most carefully safeguarded. I think the House will give a general assent to that proposition.

On June 14, 1921

...do not let us make the same mistake in Palestine as was committed in Mesopotamia two years ago, that is to say, have too many English officials; rather have a less efficient Government, manned by Palestinians, Jews, Christians and Moslems, getting them to work together in the same office...

One word about Trans-Jordania. Across the Jordan you have a real Arab country, and I am delighted that there a settlement has been arrived at. A settlement has been arrived at, for the present at any rate, by having a member of the Sherifian family and by trying to start something like a decent administration. For centuries there have been bloody feuds between the tribes. Their conditions are quite separate. Do not let us create any economic barriers between them. Free trade and eventually federation are absolutely essential. Free intercourse also is absolutely essential.

That quotation employs the term "Palestinian" to refer to all residents of the territory while noting that Transjordan, todays's Hashemite Kingsom of Jordan, is different, it being a "real Arab country", which, then, "Palestine" isn't - because it is a Jewish national home.

From June 8, 1921

The fact is that Palestinians feel that the Zionist grip is rapidly closing upon them, and they are helpless...

Zionists are not, seemingly, Palestinians.

On November 2, 1921

...The Government, by holding back certain facts which were then in their possession, have, I believe, done a great injustice to the Palestinians, who stand accused of a rather stupid and wanton pogrom on that occasion [referring to the May riots in Jaffa - YM].
- - -
...Commission proposed sale large plots valuable urban lands impossible for individual Palestinians to purchase, leaving Zionists sole prospective purchasers at the price they fix. What is going on in Palestine now...in my opinion, [is that] injustice is being committed against the Palestinians.

"Palestinians" are those who engaged in violence, therefore, they are the Arabs, not Jews/Zionists.

On June 8 1921

At the present time there are three distinct Jewish Labour Parties in Palestine...The Centre Party is the largest of them, and it advocates nationalisation of the land, and a national life based upon Hebrew. That is a programme which must be abhorrent to all Palestinians, both Moslem and Christian...it employs itself in breaking up Labour processions, and also in trying to convert the Palestinians into Bolsheviks.

"Palestinians', it seems, cannot be Jews.

On June 21, 1922, I found multiple usages:

On more than one occasion he [Winston Churchill, Colonial Secretary] has been asked by Arab Delegations and Palestinian organisations to remove the Zionist bias and to substitute in its place a national system.
- - -
Now, Palestinian organisations have put forward what would appear to be a quite reasonable demand for a share of the control of the immigration of the people that are to come into their own country.
- - -
The Palestinians have asked for an early recognition of self-government in their country and they have been told that it must be very gradual,
- - -
...as we think, the injustices, upon the Palestinians has been already told. We may have told it feebly, but at all events those who took up the cause of the Palestinians were in thorough and complete earnest.
- - -
That Proclamation pledges us in the most direct fashion to the whole Palestinian people, Moslems, Christians and Jews at that time in Palestine
- - -
The Declaration promised that nothing should be done which would prejudice the "civil rights" of the Palestinians. Is it possible to say that we have done nothing which prejudices those civil rights? These rights have been trampled upon ever since the Zionist Commission established itself at Jerusalem. The Administration of Palestine at the present time is distinctly Zionist, and it is Zionist in the sense that it frequently acts in defiance of the unanimous wishes of the people, Moslems, Christians and orthodox Jews. Palestinians would never have objected to the establishment of more colonies of well-selected Jews; but, instead of that, we have dumped down 25,000 promiscuous people on the shores of Palestine, many of them quite unsuited for colonising purposes, and some of them Bolsheviks, who have already shown the most sinister activity. The Arabs would have kept the Holy Land clear from Bolshevism..
- - -
But, far worse than the loss of money, we have lost the confidence of the Palestinian people, who trusted us implicitly when they heard the Declaration which General Allenby made to them...
- - -
It is really a painful and humiliating fact that the Palestinians under Turkish rule were more contented, more lightly taxed, and had far more share in their Government, than they have under the British flag at the present moment...What we have done is, by concessions, not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section, to start a running sore in the East...
- - -
...to enforce a policy which, I contend, conflicts with the pledges of His Majesty's Government, and also with the elementary rights of the Palestinian people. The Mandate as it stands will undoubtedly, in time, transfer the control of the Holy Land to New York, Berlin, London, Frankfurt and other places. The strings will not be pulled from Palestine; they will be pulled from foreign capitals...
- - -
There is nothing in that speech which will give any degree of confidence either to the Arab Delegation here or to the Palestinians in the East
- - -
Sir Herbert Samuel, at the meeting to which I have referred, said distinctly there was no intention of allowing the Zionist Commission to act as an imperium in imperio, and that they were to be absolutely confined to carrying out the objects which strictly concern the Jews, and not those which concern the Palestinians in general.

All the above usages are varied and go either way.

On May 4, 1922, a question is asked on the proposed Palestine Constitution

Whether English Jews holding official positions in Palestine will be considered as Palestinians, and if so whether Arabs will be equally eligible for such positions...

The answer being:

In any case there is no discrimination in the Palestine Civil Service against Palestinian Arabs who, if they possess the necessary qualifications, may fill vacancies as they occur.

So, Jews can be "Palestinians" above.

On November 29, 1922

If this view is correct, it seems to me clear that the League of Nations was bound by its own Covenant to consult the wishes of the Palestinians before ratifying the Mandate. But so far as I know—and I hope I am wrong—nothing has been done in that direction.
- - -
I allude to the poor Montenegrin people and the Palestinians. In neither of those cases has the League of Nations stood up for the rights of small and unprotected people.

"Palestinians" are separate.

So, obviously, the above primary source material is, in the end, inconclusive. What was found were many usages that fit the contemporary reality of a "Palestinian people" but also other connotations.

There is also this from Malcolm MacDonald in the House debate on November 24, 1938:

I think that this House, which is so capable of a generous understanding of other peoples, ought to recognise that many in the Palestinian Arab movement are moved by a genuine patriotism. However wrong they may be, however misguided they may be, however disastrous their policy may be, many of them have felt compelled to take the risk of laying down their lives for their country.(*)

What is telling, though, is that the Palestine Liberation Organization, founded in 1964, did not fully view its struggle as relating ot the territory controlled by Jordan.  For the PLO, "Palestine" was only Israel, again revealing the instrumental nature of the term.

"Palestine" never truly existed as a country, as a geo-political entity that promoted a special culture, a unique ethos, that generated a national identity and, of course, never in any legal form did it exist even under centuries of Muslim rule.


(*)

And I found this later elaboration there which is quite relevant to the discussion of a distinct "Palestinian Arab" identity:

I think that this House, which is so capable of a generous understanding of other peoples, ought to recognise that many in the Palestinian Arab movement are moved by a genuine patriotism. However wrong they may be, however misguided they may be, however disastrous their policy may be, many of them have felt compelled to take the risk of laying down their lives for their country.

...The other side is this: the Arabs cannot say that the Jews are driving them out of their country. If not a single Jew had come to Palestine after 1918, I believe the Arab population of Palestine to-day would still have been round about the 600,000 figure at which it had been stable under Turkish rule. It is because the Jews who have come to Palestine bring modern health services and other advantages that Arab men and women who would have been dead are alive to-day, that Arab children who would never have drawn breath have been born and grown strong. It is not only the Jews who have benefited from the Balfour Declaration. They can deny it as much as they like, but materially the Arabs in Palestine have gained very greatly from the Balfour Declaration.

I know that it is useless to press that argument on the Arabs. They are deaf to the argument, they are blind to the spectacle of a gradually improving standard of life for their people, because they are thinking of something else. They are thinking of their freedom. They are afraid that, if this process goes on, then at last they will have to surrender to the political over-lordship of the enterprising, hardworking, ever-increasing citizens of the Jewish National Home. I say that we British people ought to be the last people in the world not to understand the feelings of the Arabs in this matter, because we too would sacrifice material advantages if we thought our freedom was at stake. We cannot put the Jews under the domination of the Arabs in Palestine, but also, unless we can remove that Arab fear that they are going to be put under the domination of the Jews, we shall have to face a suspicious and hostile people over a great area of the Near East, and we shall find that we have to lock up a great part of our Army in Palestine indefinitely.

^

Practicing Academic Genocide

I have just read an article and a blog post.

The blog post is here at EOZ and, with help from Ovagoy, he quotes a Ken O'Keefe who says that Jews who do not criticize Israel are like pre-war Germans.

This is an example of a growing opinion, first coming from the antisemites and now seeping into academia and columnists, that Israel's actions in defending itself against Arab terror (deed) and Arab negation (thought) of the Jewish people's peoplehood is somehow Nazism.

Gaza is no less than a concentration camp. Israelis soldiers are Gestaspo. The rhetoric increases all the time.

Which leads me to the article I was sent this past week and finished reading last night. I admit, I was surprised. I had assumed that this Germanic comparison ranting was off-the-edge. It isn't. My ignorance embarrassed me.

I was aware of a pro-Pal. activist who seems to have sold his soul for falafel. Here is Francis A. Boyle, currently Professor in International Law at University of Chicago in 1997 demanding:

that the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine and its President institute legal proceedings against Israel before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague (the so-called World Court) for violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. I am sure we can all agree that Israel has indeed perpetrated the international crime of genocide against the Palestinian People

and in 2009 he wrote

[this is what] Israel is currently doing to the Palestinian people: crimes against humanity. Expressed in legal terms, this is just like what Hitler and the Nazis did to the Jews

But the article immediately in question (and there may be others) entitled is "The question of genocide in Palestine, 1948: an exchange between Martin Shaw and Omer Bartov" and was published in the Journal of Genocide Research, Volume 12, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 243 – 259. In a previous article which led directly to this latest Shaw-Bartov "discussion", he set out his goal:

This article discusses what may be involved in treating the 1948 destruction of a large part of Arab society in Palestine as 'genocide'. It argues that genocide is a general sociological concept which can be applied to many historical cases varying in scale, murderousness, ideological motivation, etc., so applying genocide analysis does not imply a comparison to any other specific case. The article analyses the Palestinian case in the context of an international perspective on the historical development of genocide, and discusses the significance of differences over the historical explanation of the 1948 events for a genocide perspective.

He explains in the article, and repeats in his discussion with Omer Bartov, Professor at Brown University and chair of its Department of History, his

...justification for introducing a genocide perspective. It proceeds from the assumption that genocide is an important concept of social and historical analysis, and that applying a genocide perspective will help us to explore and explain the Palestinian crisis of the last six decades in an illuminating way. In order that a genocide perspective can fulfill this role, however, it is necessary to discuss what genocide means, why the concept is important, and how it should be used in historical analysis.

The key to his approach is two-fold: fudge historical facts (he admits to lack of Hebrew comprehension which nevertheless does not interefe with hius analysis of the Hebrew words tihur ('cleaning') and 'shoah' (Holocaust but not always and adopt a new definition.

For example, he suggests that

we need also to pay attention to how prevalent a genocidal mentality was among nationalist elites in Eastern Europe – the milieu in which Zionism itself was formed. It had become normal, in formulating a project for a nationally homogenous state, to envisage removing populations who did not fit (italics in original).

and then takes it a step further off the cliff:

The proposal here is therefore that we should view Israel's destruction of large parts of Arab society in Palestine in 1948 not simply through the perspective of settler-colonial genocide, but as an extension of the exclusivist nationalism which had recently brought about extensive genocidal violence in the European war – and perhaps even (given the complex connections between the different branches of Zionist power involved in forcing the removal of the Palestinian population) as in some senses like the 'post-colonial' genocide of the Indian Partition.

He then tries to cover his mendaciousness while carrying forth the banner of prejudice:

To return to Palestine: clearly no one contends that Israel intended to commit the extensive mass murder of the Arab population, and so in terms of a narrow understanding of genocide, there is no case to discuss. The Nakba was not the Final Solution, and a simple comparison of the two is utterly inappropriate, even if earlier episodes in the Nazi genocide of the Jews, such as the 1939-40 expulsion from western Poland into ghettos in central Poland, provide more debatable comparisons

His definition of genocide simple alters the meaning. Dominate the vocabulary and lexicon and only you can use words, I would say, if I could. For him:

Genocidal action aims not just to contain, control, or subordinate a population, but to shatter and break up its social existence. Thus genocide is defined, not by a particular form of violence, but by general and pervasive violence...even if we may distinguish genocide from war or repression, in historical reality they are usually closely related. [italics in the original)

So to say, it is not what I do and accomplish and moreover, I don't really have to kill and destroy building but severely damage social institutions, but how I do it. If I act violently but do not actually eradicate a population, perhaps it isn't genocide?

He continues this 'withdraw-proceed' maneuver at the end:

in Gaza in 2009, Israel did not aim to destroy Palestinian society, but to impose a severe collective punishment on that society for its support of Hamas, while attempting to destroy, physically as well as militarily, that organisation itself. (Ironically it was the attempt to assassinate Hamas members, killing their families, which seemed closer to genocide than the punishment of the general population.) I draw a rather different conclusion: the consequence of a society founded on genocide in these circumstances is a situation of more or less permanent war. So long as Israel does not come to terms with the genocide of 1948 and its enduring injustice, its leaders will continue to resort to brutal, degenerate war as a method of keeping the Palestinians in their place. A society thus founded cannot hope either for integrity or for security.

So, with a wave of a wand and the mutterings of some hocus-pocus, the definition of genocide is altered, broadened and made facile but all the more applicable to cases of conflict where genocide not only didn't take place but was not intended even if a claim of 'transfer' is arguable. Genocide is not only about people but a society.

Bartov makes a very good rebuttal and you'll have to read him but I do not have it on-line at the moment. Nevertheless, one thing Bartov could have emphasized is that persons like Shaw simply avoid the genocidal nature of the local Arab movement in Mandate Palestine, something I touched upon in my review (Part I; II; III; IV) of Norman Rose's new book - woeful as the book is -, especially in the new research (but basically known and published decades ago) that traces the Mufti's complete identification with and willingess to serve Nazism (see here; and here; and also here)

By refusing to confront this history, the actual ethnic cleansing of Jews from locations they resided in for centuries - and not the "new Zionist colonies" - such as Hebron, gaza nd Shchem/Nablus as well as Gush Etzion, Tel Hai and Neveh Yaakov as well as Jeruslame's Old City quarter - Shaw and others are not only revealing their ignorance but their unwillingness to be objective scholars. And they act as apologists for genocidal tendencies that were acted out and still form the foundation of Arab hostility to Israel.

Could I suggest that Shaw, et al. are engaged in a genocidal operation against the national idea and the hsitorical record of the Jewish people in Eretz-Yisrael, its historic homeland?


(see, too, my Green-Lined version at the JPost.)
_______________________
Prof. Bartov can be contacted at Omer_Bartov@Brown.EDU
Prof. Shaw can be contacted at martinshaw34@gmail.com

==============

UPDATE

Now see this.

^