A brief look at the Palestine question

by Abu Khalid

(Note: This article will be subject to an update with more referenced info. If in the meantime you want to contribute, please feel free to email me at simple_email_alright@yahoo.co.uk)

Here is a map of Palestine in 1945, this shows total land ownership in Palestine:

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story573.html

A UN document has this to say on the Village Statistics:

"Hadawi, former Chief of the Land Taxation Section of the Palestine Government's Department of Land Settlement and editor of the authoritative Village Statistics that classified land categories and ownership during the mandate..." - http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/refugees/peretz.htm

See these also:

http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/maps/hist_owners.html (source: Applied Research Institute in Jerusalem)

Here is the map itself from the cited source:

http://www.arij.org/atlas/maps/Agricultural%20Land%20Ownership%20in%20Palestine,%201945.gif

http://www.arij.org/atlas/maps/Land%20Ownership%20in%20Palestine,%201945.gif

Also:
http://www.al-awda.org/land_ownership.htm

According to this UN document, statistics after Israeli independence show the land ownership in the new state of Israel, the percentage of land ownership after Israeli independence, and subsequently after the document mass expulsions, otherwise known as ethnic cleansing (unless another URL is stated, all quotes and facts and figures are from http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpal/dpr/DPR_pp_1.htm):

"Hadawi, former Chief of the Land Taxation Section of the Palestine Government's Department of Land Settlement and editor of the authoritative Village Statistics that classified land categories and ownership during the mandate gave the following data on Arab owned land in Israel following the 1949 armistice agreements.

Area (in acres) Percentage
Arab individually owned 1,870,492 36.64
Jewish owned 368,941 7.23
Other than A or J 26,308 0.52
State domain 2,838,765 55.61
Total 5,104,505 100.00" - http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/refugees/peretz.htm

So even the total Arab land ownership *after* the documented ethnic cleansing is much more than the Jews. So even if we disregard the earlier documentation as to the Palestinians ownership of land, we still have to ask, why was the majority of this land (1,870,492 36.64 acres) taken from them even after the first Arab-Israeli war?

"The decision on the Mandate did not take into account the wishes of the people of Palestine, despite the Covenant's requirements that "the wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory". This assumed special significance because, almost five years before receiving the mandate from the League of Nations, the British Government had given commitments to the Zionist Organization regarding the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, for which Zionist leaders had pressed a claim of "historical connection" since their ancestors had lived in Palestine two thousand years earlier before dispersing in the "Diaspora"."

The Zionists had bad intentions when they went to Palestine:

"The Peace Conference should not shut its eyes to the fact that the anti-Zionist feeling in Palestine and Syria is intense and not lightly to be flouted. No British Officer consulted by the Commissioners believed that the Zionist programme could be carried out except by force of arms. The officers generally thought that a force of not less than 50,000 soldiers would be required even to initiate the programme. That of itself is evidence of a strong sense of the injustice of the Zionist programme, on the part of the non-Jewish populations of Palestine and Syria. Decisions, requiring armies to carry out, are sometimes necessary, but they are surely not gratuitously to be taken in the interests of a serious injustice. For the initial claim, often submitted by Zionist representatives, that they have a "right" to Palestine, based on an occupation of two thousand years ago, can hardly be seriously considered."

The link gives the low-down on the history of Palestine (and to the people who say Palestine never existed, notice the repeated mentioning of Palestine by politicians) which is effect a history of bias and favouritism, as illustrated by this comment by Balfour:

"In a memorandum to Lord Curzon on 11 August 1919, Balfour candidly wrote:

"The contradiction between the letters of the Covenant and the policy of the Allies is even more flagrant in the case of the 'independent nation' of Palestine than in that of the 'independent nation' of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country, though the American Commission has been going through the form of asking what they are.

"The four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land."

So in effect, the origins of Israel was a plan to settle Jews whose right to the land is described as; "[the Jewish claim to Palestine] can hardly be seriously considered", and yet we see active assistance by the British in the Balfour declaration and then British colonial policy to allow invaders to come in and make a state on land even which they did not own (the territory originally allocated to Israel did not reflect the land which they owned, 7%, so they were in effect given land which Arabs owned to form their state, and the land which their states was to be based on had itself at least half a population of Arabs actually owning those lands), and then the UN unjustly legitimising this expropriation of Arab-owned land when it gave a resolution for the twin states, even though Arabs on an individual basis owned over 78% of the land, while 7% was Jew owned and the rest government owned, tell me, why would the Arabs willingly surrender their original share which they owned to a foreign state, don't they have the right to self-determination? So here we see several organisations turning the unjust to "just".

The King-Crane commission, which was set up to contextualise and oversee events in Palestine's nearing partition, states:

"If that principle is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine's population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine, then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine - nearly nine-tenths of the whole - are emphatically against the entire Zionist programme. The tables show that there was no one thing upon which the population of Palestine were more agreed than upon this. To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principle just quoted, and of the peoples' rights though it kept within the forms of law;..."

Is, or was this democratic? No.

Let us hear more of the Western complicity and injustice:

"The final disposition of Palestine was decided by the Allied Supreme Council at the San Remo Conference on 25 April 1920. The process has been described as follows:

"The allocation of the Mandate was for several reasons a slow process. In the first place, it hung upon the Anglo-French agreement as to the validity of the Sykes-Picot arrangements for the whole of the ex-Turkish territories, and this was held up by discord over Syria and Mosul, involving discussions très vives de ton between Clemenceau and Mr. Lloyd George. As a result of the compromise, Palestine, which had under the Sykes-Picot plan been destined for international administration, in the end passed by mutual consent into British tutelage."

The decision was taken without any heed to the requirement of article 22 of the Covenant that "the wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of a Mandatory".

The decision of the Allied Powers to support Zionist aims drew protest from Palestinians. Citizens of Nazareth reminded the British Administrator in Jerusalem:

"In view of the declaration of the decision of the Peace Conference regarding the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, we hereby beg to declare that we are the owners of this country and the land is our national home ...""

On the origins of the Arab distaste of Zionist migrants, his "fact" of the Arabs not liking the Zionists is commonly taken out of context by supporters of Israel and twisted to mean that the Arabs were not welcoming and were very intolerant, but the document has this to say:

"The Balfour Declaration was first officially made public in Palestine only in 1920 after the installation of the civilian administration, having been kept officially confidential until then to minimize the chances of disorder caused by the protests that were anticipated from the Palestinians. Of course, the nature and object of the Declaration and the policy it sought to introduce had quickly become common knowledge. It had led quickly to violent conflict in Palestine. In London, a delegation from the Moslem-Christian Association of Palestine tried in 1921 and 1922 to present the Palestinian case to counter the sustained influence of the Zionist Organization on British authorities in both London and Jerusalem."

"It is clear that by failing to consult the Palestinian people in the decision on the future of their country, the victorious Powers ignored not only the principle of self-determination that they themselves had endorsed, but also the provisions of Article 22 of the League's Covenant.

Even during the mandate, the Palestinians protested against this denial of their fundamental rights. The report of the Royal Commission (of 1937) records these protests:

"... though the Mandate was ostensibly based on Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, its positive injunctions were not directed to the 'well-being and development' of the existing Arab population but to the promotion of Jewish interests. Complete power over the legislation as well as administration was delegated to the Mandatory, who undertook to place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as would secure the establishment of the Jewish national home ...""

Lord Curzon stated:

"Here is a country with 580,000 Arabs and 30,000 or is it 60,000 Jews (by no means all Zionists). Acting upon the noble principles of self-determination and ending with a splendid appeal to the League of Nations, we then proceed to draw up a document which ... is an avowed constitution for a Jewish State. Even the poor Arabs are only allowed to look through the keyhole as a non-Jewish community."

The Arabs stated, quite reasonably:

""... We wish to point out here that the Jewish population of Palestine who lived there before the War never had any trouble with their Arab neighbours. They enjoyed the same rights and privileges as their fellow Ottoman citizens, and never agitated for the Declaration of November 1917. It is the Zionists outside Palestine who worked for the Balfour Declaration ...

"We therefore here once again repeat that nothing will safeguard Arab interests in Palestine but the immediate creation of a national government which shall be responsible to a Parliament of all whose members are elected by the people of the country - Moslems, Christians and Jews ..."

When we take into consideration the Jewish control of immigration:

"Immigration was virtually under the control of Zionist organizations, as described in the report of an official Commission:

"... We were informed by the Chief Immigration Officer that in the allocation to individuals of the certificates which are supplied in blank to the General Federation of Jewish Labour, it is the practice of that body to have regard to the political creed of the several possible immigrants rather than to their particular qualifications for admission to Palestine. It is clearly the duty of the responsible Jewish authorities to select for admission to Palestine those of the prospective immigrants who are best qualified on personal grounds to assist in the establishment of a Jewish national home in that country: that political creed should be a deciding factor in the choice between applicants is open to the strongest exception""

This Jewish control then led to the influx of Zionists into Palestine, while the news already broke out that the Zionists were planning to make a state on land which was Arab owned, and we have a recipe for Arab agitation against an invader, certainly not Arab "intolerance of Jews" as commonly charged against Palestinians by some people:

"With the British occupation of Palestine in 1918 all land transactions were suspended. The registers were reopened in 1920, at which time it was estimated that Jewish land acquisitions stood at about 650,000 dunums** or 2.5 per cent of the total land area of 26 million dunums). By the end of the decade this figure had nearly doubled to 1,200,000 dunums, just below 5 per cent."

We must then remember the Zionists stated intentions:

"A strict policy of what in today's terms would be described as racial discrimination was maintained by the Zionist Organization in this rapid advance towards the "national home". Only Jewish labour could service Jewish farms and settlements. The eventual outcome of this trend was a major outbreak of violence with unprecedented loss of life in 1929, which was investigated by the Shaw Commission. Another commission headed by Sir John Hope Simpson followed to investigate questions of immigration and land transfers. Certain observations of the Hope Simpson Commission are of interest, particularly on labour and employment policies.

The Commission went into great detail in its report, dividing Palestine into areas according to cultivability, and estimating total cultivable land at about 6.5 million dunums of which about a sixth was in Jewish hands.

The report described in some detail the employment policies of the Zionist agencies quoting some of their provisions:

"The effect of the Jewish colonization in Palestine on the existing population is very intimately affected by the conditions on which the various Jewish bodies hold, sell and lease their land.

"The Constitution of the Jewish Agency: Land Holding and Employment Clauses ...

"(d) Land is to be acquired as Jewish property and ... the same shall be held as the inalienable property of the Jewish people.

"(e) The Agency shall promote agricultural colonization based on Jewish labour ... it shall be deemed to be a matter of principle that Jewish labour shall be employed ..."

"Keren Kayemet draft lease: Employment of Jewish labour only

"... The lessee undertakes to execute all works connected with the cultivation of the holding only with Jewish labour. Failure to comply with this duty by the employment of non-Jewish labour shall render the lessee liable to the payment of compensation ..."

"The lease also provides that the holding shall never be held by any but a Jew ..."

"Keren ha-Yesod agreements: Employment of labour

The following provisions are included:

'Article 7 - The settler hereby undertakes that ... if and whenever he may be obliged to hire help, he will hire Jewish workmen only.'

"In the similar agreement for the Emek colonies, there is a provision as follows:

'Article 11 - The settler undertakes ... not to hire any outside labour except Jewish labourers.'" 74/

Commenting on the Zionist attitude towards the Palestinians, the report noted the Zionist policy of allaying Arab suspicions:

"Zionist policy in regard to Arabs in their colonies. The above-quoted provisions sufficiently illustrate the Zionist policy with regard to the Arabs in their colonies. Attempts are constantly being made to establish the advantage which Jewish settlement has brought to the Arab. The most lofty sentiments are ventilated at public meetings and in Zionist propaganda. At the time of the Zionist Congress in 1931 a resolution was passed which 'solemnly declared the desire of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people, to develop the homeland common to both into a prosperous community which would ensure the growth of the peoples'. This resolution is frequently quoted in proof of the excellent sentiments which zionism cherishes towards the people of Palestine. The provisions quoted above, which are included in legal documents binding on every settler in a Zionist colony, are not compatible with the sentiments publicly expressed."

At the same time, the Commission, rejecting Zionist arguments in support of their discriminatory policies, considered that they violated the Mandate:

"Policy contrary to article 6 of Mandate ... The principle of the persistent and deliberate boycott of Arab labour in the Zionist colonies is not only contrary to the provisions of that article of the Mandate, but it is in addition a constant and increasing source of danger to the country."

The report noted in the strongest terms the effect on indigenous Palestinians of Zionist policies.

"The effect of the Zionist colonization policy on the Arab. Actually the result of the purchase of land in Palestine by the Jewish National Fund has been that land has been extraterritorialized. It ceases to be land from which the Arab can gain any advantage either now or at any time in the future. Not only can he never hope to lease or to cultivate it, but, by the stringent provisions of the lease of the Jewish National Fund, he is deprived for ever from employment on that land. Nor can anyone help him by purchasing the land and restoring it to common use. The land is in mortmain and inalienable. It is for this reason that Arabs discount the professions of friendship and goodwill on the part of the Zionists in view of the policy which the Zionist Organization deliberately adopted."

"Land available for settlement. It has emerged quite definitely that there is at the present time and with the present methods of Arab cultivation no margin of land available for agricultural settlement by new immigrants with the exception of such undeveloped land as the various Jewish agencies hold in reserve."

These developments in Palestine at the end of the 1920s - the 1929 Palestinian revolt and the reports of the Shaw and Hope Simpson Commissions - heightened awareness of the dangerous situation in Palestine as the Zionist drive towards a Jewish State met increasing Palestinian opposition."

By 1945, the Zionist intentions were known:

"The Jewish Agency formally presented its demands to the British Government in May 1945 as follows:

"(1) That an immediate decision be announced to establish Palestine as a Jewish State.

"(2) That the Jewish Agency be invested with all necessary authority to bring to Palestine as many Jews as it may be found necessary and possible to settle, and to develop, fully and speedily, all the resources of the country - especially land and power resources.

"(3) That an international loan and other help be given for the transfer of the first million of Jews to Palestine, and for the economic development of the country.

"(4) That reparations in kind from Germany be granted to the Jewish people for the rebuilding of Palestine, and - as a first instalment - that all German property in Palestine be used for the resettlement of Jews from Europe.

"(5) That international facilities be provided for the exit and transit of all Jews who wish to settle in Palestine.""

This was the Arab position:

"(a) Palestine would be a unitary State with a permanent Arab majority, and would attain its independence as such after a short period of transition (two or three years) under British Mandate;

(b) Within this unitary State, Jews who had acquired Palestinian citizenship (for which the qualification would be 10 years' residence in the country) would have full civil rights, equally with all other citizens of Palestine;

(c) Special safeguards would be provided to protect the religious and cultural rights of the Jewish community;

(d) The Jewish community would be entitled to a number of seats in the Legislative Assembly proportionate to the number of Jewish citizens (as defined) in Palestine, subject to the proviso that in no case would the number of Jewish representatives exceed one third of the total number of members;

(e) All legislation concerning immigration and the transfer of land would require the consent of the Arabs in Palestine as expressed by a majority of the Arab members of the Legislative Assembly; and the safeguards provided for the Jewish community would be alterable only with the consent of a majority of the Jewish members of the Legislative Assembly"."

An important demographic fact about Palestine in 1947 is:

"At the culmination of a quarter century of Mandatory rule, Palestine had been radically transformed in demographic terms. The population of Palestine had increased tremendously - from the 750,000 of the 1922 census to almost 1,850,000 at the end of 1946 - an increase of nearly 250 per cent. During this period the Jewish population had soared from 56,000 after the First World War to 84,000 in 1922 to 608,000 in 1946, an increase of about 725 per cent. From constituting less than a tenth of the population in Palestine after the First World War, the Jewish community in 1947 constituted nearly a third. A good part of this was due to births within Palestine but legal immigration alone accounted for over 376,000, with illegal immigration being estimated at another 65,000 - a total of 440,000. This Jewish population was primarily urban - about 70 per cent to 75 per cent in and around the cities of Jerusalem, Jaffa-Tel Aviv and Haifa."

On the question on land ownership:

"Land holding patterns had also changed considerably. From the 650,000 dunums held by Jewish organizations in 1920, of the total land area of 26 million dunums, the figure at the end of 1946 had reached 1,625,000 dunums - an increase of about 250 per cent and Jewish settlement had displaced large numbers of Palestinian Arab peasants. Even so, this area represented only 6.2 per cent of the total area of Palestine and 12 per cent of the cultivable land."

Arnold J. Toynbee summs up this complicity thus:

"All through those 30 years, Britain (admitted) into Palestine, year by year, a quota of Jewish immigrants that varied according to the strength of the respective pressures of the Arabs and Jews at the time. These immigrants could not have come in if they had not been shielded by a British chevaux-de-frise. If Palestine had remained under Ottoman Turkish rule, or if it had become an independent Arab state in 1918, Jewish immigrants would never have been admitted into Palestine in large enough numbers to enable them to overwhelm the Palestinian Arabs in this Arab people's own country. The reason why the State of Israel exists today and why today 1,500,000 Palestinian Arabs are refugees is that, for 30 years, Jewish immigration was imposed on the Palestinian Arabs by British military power until the immigrants were sufficiently numerous and sufficiently well-armed to be able to fend for themselves with tanks and planes of their own. The tragedy in Palestine is not just a local one; it is a tragedy for the world, because it is an injustice that is a menace to the world's peace."

More info can be found thus:

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

Please read the history, then remember the ethnic cleansing by a minority who were sent into Palestine without the natives consent and who aroused the ire of the population by declaring that they want to make a nation on land which was owned by the natives, even without their help by force:

"There is ample evidence of forcible expulsions. The most notorious was the Lydda/Ramle death march. On July 12 and 13, 1948, on the direct order of Ben-Gurion, Israeli forces expelled the 50,000 residents of the towns of Lydda and neighboring Ramle. Yitzak Rabin, later to become Israeli Prime Minister, wrote in his memoirs that "there was no way of avoiding the use of force and warning shots in order to make the inhabitants march the ten or fifteen miles" required to reach Arab positions. Before they left, the townspeople were "systematically stripped of all their belongings," according to the Economist newspaper in London. Many of the expelled died in the 100-degree heat during the trek." - The Expulsion of the Palestinians.