Emir Feisal I (right) and Chaim Weizmann (also...

Emir Feisal I (right) and Chaim Weizmann (also wearing Arab dress as a sign of friendship) in Syria. At this time Feisal was living in Syria not Iraq. Português: 1918. Emir Faisal I e Chaim Weizmann (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

British Mandate of Palestine, 1920s. Created b...

British Mandate of Palestine, 1920s. Created by modification of public domain image Image:BritishMandatePalestine1920.jpg. Modifications consisted of enlarging the font of two words and converting to PNG. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We on themarxistblog have never forgotten our readings of 23 Reasons to oppose a Palestine State in Yesha. It was done by our friend Joseph Alexander Norland. Joseph had a great advantage. He was an academic and we are attracted to that type of analysis. We place great importance on the empirical, meaning in this case the facts of history. We seek to transcend this through building themarxistblog as a force in politics today (See WHAT WE FIGHT FOR in the pages at top of the site)

The Palestine Narrative is based on lies mainly and has been added to, developed, changed over the years. That is a crucial thing to understand. There is a story to the mao to the right which has been hidden and another story (lies) told. This must be learned. Jewish people have tended to sit back and just watch while groups like the Irish Palestine Solidarity have been most proactive in every sphere of Irish life, even in the important area of Irish Music.

We have great pleasure in starting our work based on the research of Joseph Alexander Norland.



Jews’ ancestral land

  1. Palestine belongs to the  Jews as their ancestral land, a land inhabited by Jews continuously for thousands of years. The Jewish connection to Palestine  was recognized by the “International Community” in the form of  the League of Nations’ mandate over Palestine.



This statement appears repeatedly in advocacy articles written from a pro-Israeli viewpoint, an example being quoted below. The statement is also corroborated by authoritative historians, but these works are not available on the web.



On the other hand, it is easy to establish and document definitively that the “international community” has accepted the Jewish historical claim to Palestine, and consequently the claim of the Jewish people to a national home in Palestine. To substantiate this statement, I quote from the preamble to the text of the League of Nations Mandate:


“Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country ; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country…”

(The text quoted above may be found on many web sites; we selected to quote from the site of YaleLawSchool).


It is also possible for the student to use google combined with “wiki”, In this case place this in Wikipedia “Mandate for Palestine wiki” and it comes up…simple!




Among the parties present at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, were Felix Frankfurter and Chaim Weizmann on behalf of the Zionist movement, and the Emir Feisal on behalf of the Hedjaz (now Saudi Arabia). In the course of their meetings, Feisal wrote a letter addressed to Frankfurter and dated 3 March, 1919. The letter, which may be found at stated:


We Arabs, especially the educated among us look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through: we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home.


Unless Feisal himself recognized the Jewish historical claim to Palestine, there would be no meaning to the sentence, “we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home”. Hence it is clear that the Jewish claim to Palestine was already well established even among the Arabs, when the League of Nations granted the British a mandate over Palestine on July 24, 1922.




As an example of the many web sites which deal with the Jewish connection to Palestine I quote from


In 135 CE, after having long-become a province of the Roman Empire,

Judea’s third and last revolt against Rome was crushed by Emperor Hadrian; but Rome’s army also suffered devastating losses, including the complete annihilation of its illustrious XXII Legion. In furtherance of Rome’s costly victory, Hadrian — in a blatant propaganda effort to delegitimize further national Jewish claims to the Land — renamed the province Palestina (Palestine) after the Philistines, a long-extinct Aegean people who had disappeared from History approximately a millennium earlier.

However, although the province had been converted from Judea (– Land of the Jews –) into Palestina (– Land of the Philistines –), it continued to be populated by Jews, together with substantial minority populations of Christians and Samaritans, but hardly any Arabs, at least until the great Arab invasion of 638 CE, as a result of which, 73 years later, Byzantium’s Christian basilica known as the Church of Saint Mary of Justinian, which then sat atop Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, was remade into Islam’s Al-Aksa mosque. But even under the rule of the Arab and all subsequently superseding empires, the Jewish people nevertheless maintained a continuous national presence in “Palestine” — right up until the resurrection therein of the Jewish nation-state of Israel in 1948 CE.”


League of Nations Mandate for Jewish National Home

With Britain accepting the mandate over Palestine, subject to the conditions of the League of Nations, Britain committed herself to establishing the Jewish National Home in Palestine by encouraging Jewish immigration and settlement.





We reproduce some of the articles of the League of Nations Mandate.


To establish the validity of this statement, suffice it to quote the relevant passages from the text of the League of Nations’ mandate; the source, as previously, is the YaleLawSchool; bold font inserted by me.


The text of the mandate stipulates:


Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people;


Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; …


Article 2.

The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such

political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the

establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.


Article 4.

An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country. The Zionist organisation, so long as its organisation and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty’s Government to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.


Article 5.

The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power


Article 6.

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and

position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall

facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall

encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency. referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews, on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.



Clearly, the Jewish claim on Palestine is not only recognized, but specific measures are stipulated as to how to ensure that the right is transformed into a reality, especially with regard to immigration, settlement and soliciting help from world Jewry. In contrast, there is no reference whatever to political rights of any other group, such as Arabs. In fact, in the entire mandate text there is no reference to “Palestinians”, only to “non Jews”.


Of course, the “International community” was well aware of non-Jewish residents in Palestine, and, indeed, ensured that their “civil and religious rights” be enshrined in the text but no political rights, such as sovereigny, are mentioned.




It was not deemed unjust to expect the Arabs to accept a Jewish National Home in a tiny corner of the Middle East, when huge Arab lands had just been liberated by the Allies from the Ottoman yoke, and when three new Arab kingdoms (Iraq, Transjordan and Saudi Arabia) were in the process of being born. This point of “injustice” was addressed many times by Churchill, Balfour and Col. Richard Meinertzhagen.


The bottom line regarding this point is that the “international community” and Britain in particular undertook the creation of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, and hence there is no justification for creating a second Palestinian-Arab state on part of this land.

The mandatory power, Britain, betrayed her mandate by slicing off the majority of the territory allotted to the Jews by the League of Nations; the Jewish people should not now be required to relinquish sovereignty over more territory.




1920 – Original territory assigned to the Jewish National Home

1922 – Final territory assigned to the Jewish National Home

(Jews have lost most of Palestine already)

The above 2 maps are taken from the excellent site

(The student of history should keep these maps continually in mind. Not just the Jewish, but any issue, in our world today has to be understood historically. This is a crucial period from 1917 to 1945 and especially this earlier part of that period. Basically the world was promising the Jews a Homeland in Palestine. Keep in mind there were NO PALESTINIANS. The second map shows a major injustice almost immediately to the Jews and their dreams. Who was at fault Winston Churchill and the British Government. We will go into this later)










The entire story of Britain chipping away at the Jewish National Home is told by a map showing the 1920, 1921 and 1923 borders of Palestine. This map has been reproduced in web sites and in history books numerous times. For example, the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs, or PASSIA, runs a site with numerous maps relevant to Palestine politics. Using this site, one can find an annotated map showing the boundaries of mandatory Palestine. (PASSIA is “an Arab non-profit institution located in Jerusalem/Al-Quds with a financially and legally independent status.

It is not affiliated with any government, political party or organization”.)

The same map is also reproduced in Martin Gilbert, p. 623 .



(Transjordania is excluded)


After WW I, the major powers at the 1919 Peace Conference in Paris agreed on granting the mandate over Palestine to Britain, along the lines of the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917 (Martin Gilbert, p. 42). The details were fleshed out in the San Remo Conference, April 1920, where the boundaries of Palestine were outlined to include contemporary Israel, Judea, Samaria, Gaza, Jordan and the Golan Heights.




Britain and the “International Community” appeasing the Arabs


Role of Winston Churchill in taking away from the Jews 78% of their land for their Jewish Homeland…giving it to the Arabs…thus creation of Transjordan


The political events in 1919-1920 that are relevant to this article include the crowning of the Emir Feisal of Hedjaz as King of Syria and his ouster by force at the hands of the French army that occupied Syria and Lebanon in July 1920 (shortly after the San Remo Conference). As a result, Faisal’s younger brother, Abdullah, made his way to contemporary Jordan at the head of a small band of fighters to help Faisal. Contemporaneously, the Palestinian Arabs had become vocal in their

opposition to the Zionist project.


Thus, at the Cairo Conference of March 1921, Churchill took another step in a long series of attempts to appease the Arabs: the east bank of Palestine was delivered to Abdullah as his future kingdom, together with a hefty subsidy (i.e., bribe), and the area was excluded from the Jewish National Home. In return, Abdullah gave up the attempt to reinstall his brother as king of Syria. This exclusion of “Transjordania” from the Jewish National Home was enshrined in the mandate given by the League of Nations to Britain on July 24, 1922.


(Later –  Britain’s useless attempts to appease the Palestinian-Arabs and the consequent emboldening of the Palestinian-Arab terrorists which ultimately backfired on the British



The exclusion of the east bank removed 78% of the total area allocated to the Jewish National Home by the League of Nations at San Remo.


{TO SUMMARISE SO FAR…The Arabs had joined with the Turks in the war which ended in 1918. They were the defeated entity. The Balfour Report and Declaration happened in 1917. After the war the Paris Summit of 1919 had the victorious parties make the Balfour Declaration concerning the Jewish Homeland a real entity. The next year San Remo in 1920 set this in concrete, it being understood that “Palestine” was the geographical area set aside for the Jewish Homeland. But in 1921 just some months after San Remo Churchill moved to exclude the new entity of 78% and calling this new entity by a name not ever in use “Transjordan” meaning “across the Jordan”}




In 1923, the Golan was ceded by Britain to France, the mandatory power over Syria and Lebanon. The circumstances under which this chunk of land was lopped off the Jewish National Home is explained in an article posted by Camera, as follows:


Having discovered the Golan lacks oil but that the Mosul area in northern Syria is rich in oil, the British cede the Golan to France in return for Mosul. Traditionally Mosul was part of Syria while the Golan was part of the Galilee. In return for the Golan, France relinquishes any claim to Palestine.


It is unclear how this act was reconciled with the League of Nations mandate which stipulated quite explicitly in Article 5:


Article 5.

The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.




It should be noted, finally, that the famous “Resolution 242” refers clearly to “the principle” of “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”. There is no reference to withdrawing from all the territories, and as explained by the architects of the resolution, that was not the intention in the first place. Since Israel returned most of the territory occupied in the course of the 1967 War, namely, Sinai, as part of the 1979 peace agreement with Egypt, Israel is quite right in placing the stamp of “Enough is Enough” on any further withdrawals. The issue of Resolution 242 will be dealt with separately in greater detail in a forthcoming article.


To summarize, the Jewish National Home has already been reduced in size, and there is no justification for any further reduction, especially one designed to create a 23rd Arab state (which   would also be the second Palestinian-Arab state).




It is clear that the Jewish National Home is shrinking, and fast.


It starts out with the Balfour Declaration by Britain which was never really accepted by Imperialist and Antisemitic Britain. This Antisemitic reaction took the form of many attacks against Balfour.


Britain had won the war helped in great deal by the Jews, all who fought with bravery in a war which was not easy.


The Arabs were in an area which was not theirs, they had after all their home in Arabia.


The Balfour Declaration was noble. The Antisemitism which opposed Balfour was the true reality of Britain, unfortunately.


They were scrambling to make up to the Arabs because oil was more and more becoming a strategic issue. The British started to act against the Jews, naturally out of Antisemitism because Antisemitism and the British go together, and also their Imperialist power plans were being put into play.


Churchill was actually Antisemitic as one sees in his writings about the Jews taking part in the Russian Revolution.


The Antisemitism of the British took the form of cutting the Jews down to size and that meant stripping away their land rights in the Middle East.


This can only be appreciated by seeing how this original Jewish Homeland (before its stripping away) plays out agains trhe background of the whole conquests of the Arabs.


But the word “conquests” is not quite right because remember these were given to them because of future oil games.


The student of this time and this issue must therefore place this original planned Jewish Homeland against the overall map. I think the student will find the reality staring out. Even the original was tiny when set against the whole of the Arab conquests.






Reference: Some of the historical data were culled from of the tome written by the famous British historian, Sir Martin Gilbert:


Gilbert, Martin. Israel. New York: William Morrow & Co., Inc, 1998.

Where Martin Gilbert is quoted, the relevant page is noted.




Home >>   Middle East >> Palestinian Authority
  Palestine:   Partition and Propaganda
  David Singer – 6/24/2007
  President Bush and Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stubbornly and   foolishly continue to push for the creation of an independent Palestinian   State between Israel and Jordan, as Hamas and Fatah turn the proposed site   for such a state – Gaza and the West Bank – into battlegrounds of blood,   misery and privation for the Arab populations caught in their deadly crossfire.  
  The 70th Anniversary of the Peel Commission Report released on 7 July 1937   presents a unique and impartial insight into understanding what the so called   “Palestinian problem” was – and still is today – really about.
  The Peel Commission recognised there was an insoluble conflict in Palestine between the Arabs and Jews necessitating the   partition of Palestine   into two independent sovereign states.
  There was no mention of a third interested party – the   “Palestinians” or “the Palestinian people” – who also   deserved a separate state. This “people” was the subsequent   creation of skilful Arab propaganda in the 50’s and 60’s in response to Israel’s   creation in 1948.
  The Peel Commission Report succinctly summed up the nature of the conflict in   the following words:
  “An irrepressible conflict has arisen between two national communities   within the narrow bounds of one small country. There is no common ground   between them. Their national aspirations are incompatible. The Arabs desire   to revive the traditions of the Arab golden age. The Jews desire to show what   they can achieve when restored to the land in which the Jewish nation was   born. Neither of the two national ideals permits of combination in the   service of a single State.”
  In 1937 there was no independent State called Jordan. It was then called   Trans-Jordan, it comprised 77% of the territory administered by Great Britain under the League of Nations   Mandate for Palestine   – the operation of which was specifically the subject of inquiry and   consideration by the Peel Commission.
  The right of Jews to settle in Trans-jordan pursuant to the Mandate had been   “postponed or withheld” by Britain with the consent of the League   of Nations from 16 September 1922 thus restricting the right of the Jews to   reconstitute their national homeland in only the remaining 23% of Palestine.
  The Peel Report records that:
  “The articles of the Mandate concerning the [Jewish] National Home do   not apply to Trans-Jordan and the possibility of enlarging the National Home   by Jewish immigration into Trans-Jordan rests on the assumption of concord   between Arabs and Jews.”
  That concord never eventuated and Trans-Jordan remained an exclusively Arab   reserved territory in 77% of Palestine – free   of any Jewish settlement – until independence was granted by Great Britain in 1946 with the approval of the   League of Nations at its last sitting before   dissolution. No Jew resides there today.
  The Peel Commission proposed partition into two independent Arab and Jewish   sovereign States.
  The Arab State was to be in all of Trans-Jordan – where no Jews and an   estimated 300000 Arabs lived – united with a further part of Palestine in   which only about 1250 Jews lived among about 750000 Arabs. This would have   given the Arabs a sovereign State in about 90% of the territory of the   Mandate.
  The remaining 10% was to become the sovereign Jewish State where about 400000   Jews and 225000 Arabs then lived, whilst a new Mandate was to be enacted   “for the protection of the Holy Places, solemnly guaranteed by the League of Nations, to remove all anxiety lest the Holy   Places should ever come under Jewish control.”
  Transfer of the minority population in each State was also proposed to follow   the precedent set by the exchange between the Greek and Turkish populations   following the Greco-Turkish War of 1922.
  The Peel Report noted:
  “There was a time when Arab statesmen were willing to concede little Palestine to the Jews,   provided that the rest of Arab Asia were free. That condition was not   fulfilled then, but it is on the eve of fulfilment now. In less than three   years’ time all the wide Arab area outside Palestine   between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean will be independent, and, if   Partition is adopted, the greater part of Palestine will be independent too. “
  The Report stated the advantages to the Arabs and the Jews of Partition in   the following terms:
  “The advantages to the Arabs of Partition on the lines we have proposed   may be summarized as follows:–
  (i) They obtain their national independence and can co-operate on an equal   footing with the Arabs of the neighbouring countries in the cause of Arab   unity and progress.
  (ii) They are finally delivered from the fear of being swamped by the Jews,   and from the possibility of ultimate subjection to Jewish rule.”
  “The advantages of Partition to the Jews may be summarized as follows:–
  (i) Partition secures the establishment of the Jewish National Home and   relieves it from the possibility of its being subjected in the future to Arab   rule.
  (ii) Partition enables the Jews in the fullest sense to call their National   Home their own; for it converts it into a Jewish State. Its citizens will be   able to admit as many Jews into it as they themselves believe can be   absorbed. They will attain the primary objective of Zionism–a Jewish nation,   planted in Palestine,   giving its nationals the same status in the world as other nations give   theirs. They will cease at last to live a minority life.”
  The Arabs rejected the proposal and therein sowed the seeds for the continuation   of the conflict that still remains unresolved in 2007 in just the West   Bank and Gaza – only 6% of Palestine – where sovereignty still remains   unallocated between Arabs and Jews .
  President Bush and Mr Olmert need to recognise that the proposal to create a   State between Israel and Jordan – the   product of the totally discredited 1993 Oslo Process – has turned out to be a   dismal failure and that it flies in the face of the conflict and its history,   geography and demography.
  Looking back 70 years can be the catalyst and inspiration for a new direction   in 2007 which consigns the idea of a third State in former Palestine   to the garbage bin and substitutes for it the partition of the West Bank   between Jordan and Israel to   finally complete what the Peel Commission had recommended.
  Failure to change course will have only two assured outcomes – continued   death and suffering for both Jews and Arabs and a continuing threat to world   peace.
David Singer   is an Australian Lawyer and Convenor of Jordan is Palestine International —   an organization calling for sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza to be   allocated between Israel and Jordan as the two successor States to the   Mandate for Palestine.







The Jews have established their right to the land, inter alia, by developing a desolate, barren, virtually abandoned territory into a flourishing country.



For July, 2001, the CIA fact book gives the following population figures (in millions): Israel – 5.9; “West Bank” – 2.1. Thus, the total population in the area of Palestine that corresponds to Israel, Judea, Samaria and Gaza is approximately 8 million.


But on the eve of the 1880’s Jewish immigration to Palestine, the country was both desolate and virtually empty. While the population figures until the 1922 Census are estimates, they will suffice to support this thesis.




The following data are quoted from Palestinian sources, so that the argument of pro-Zionist bias cannot be raised. Specifically, the 1860 and 1890 estimates may be found in Palestine Remembered, while the 1922 Census data are cited from the official Palestinian site. The area concerned corresponds to contemporary Israel, Judea, Samaria and Gaza:


Total population in Palestine, in 1,000s: 1860 – 411; 1890 – 553; 1922 – 752.


Thus, forty years after the 1880’s Jewish migration to Palestine and the consequent Arab migration, the country still held less than 10% of its current population.










(Following on from that, if desolate and empty in 1920, then what was it like in 1880)




The fact that Palestine was desolate and empty even as late as the early 1920’s is further substantiated by the reports submitted by the British High Commissioner to the League of Nations. The following quotations are taken from the UNISPAL site, UNISPAL being the propaganda vector which the UN created specifically to support the Palestinian-Arab propaganda machine. (Surprisingly, I have not seen this material cited in any of the published books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.)




In his first report for the period July 1920 to June 1921, the British High Commissioner reported to the League of Nations as follows:


It is obvious to every passing traveller, and well-known to every European resident, that the country was before the War, and is now, undeveloped and under-populated. The methods of agriculture are, for the most part, primitive; the area of land now cultivated could yield a far greater product. There are in addition large cultivable areas that are left untilled. The summits and slopes of the hills are admirably suited to the growth of trees, but there are no forests. Miles of sand dunes that could be redeemed, are untouched, a danger, by their encroachment, to the neighbouring tillage. The Jordan and the Yarmuk offer an abundance of water-power; but it is unused. Some industries–fishing and the culture and manufacture of tobacco are examples–have been killed by Turkish laws; none have been encouraged; the markets of Palestine and of the neighbouring countries are supplied almost wholly from Europe. The seaborne commerce, such as it is, is loaded and discharged in the open roadsteads of Jaffa and Haifa: there are no harbours. The religious and historical associations that offer most powerful attractions to the whole of the Western, and to a large part of the Eastern world, have hitherto brought to Palestine but a fraction of the pilgrims and travellers, who, under better conditions, would flock to her sacred shrines and famous sites.


The country is under-populated because of this lack of development. There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.






(We are still on the League of Nations First report of 1921)


As to the contribution of the Jewish population since the 1880’s migrations, the report notes:


After the persecutions in Russia forty years ago, the movement of the Jews  to Palestine assumed larger proportions. Jewish agricultural colonies were founded. They developed the culture of oranges and gave importance to the Jaffa orange trade. They cultivated the vine, and manufactured and exported wine. They drained swamps. They planted eucalyptus trees. They practised, with modern methods, all the processes of agriculture. There are at the present time 64 of these settlements, large and small, with a population of some 15,000. Every traveller in Palestine who visits them is impressed by the contrast between these pleasant villages, with the beautiful stretches of prosperous cultivation about them and the primitive conditions of life and work by which they are surrounded.






The spectacular manner and pace with which the immigrating Jews developed the country may be judged, inter alia, from the following passage, cited from the 1924 report of British High Commissioner to the League of Nations:


Industrial development has been stimulated by the arrival, among the

Jewish immigrants, of a considerable number of men with manufacturing

experience, and with capital. The majority of them come from Poland. They have established a number of new industries, mostly at present on a small scale, the greater number in the Jewish town of Tel-Aviv, adjacent to Jaffa. In addition, several large Jewish enterprises have been founded, and have either reached, or are about to reach, the producing stage. The most important of these enterprises are a cement factory, with an invested capital of £E.300,000; a flour mill, a vegetable oil and soap factory, and a factory of silicate bricks (made of cement and lime), each involving an expenditure of £E.100,000 or more; and, on a smaller scale, works at Athlit, on the coast, for the production of salt by evaporation, a silk factory and a tannery. The electric power station, with fuel engines, erected at Tel-Aviv under the concession granted to Mr. Rutenberg, has been obliged, after only a year’s working, to instal new engines, more than doubling its original capacity. Similar stations are in course of erection at Haifa and at Tiberias, to supply urgent demands for power and lighting there. The construction of the first hydraulic power station on the Jordan has not yet begun, but the preliminary measures have made further progress.

Jewish agricultural colonisation continues steadily. The extensive swamps of Kabbara, in the Maritime Plain, are being drained and brought under cultivation, in accordance with a concession granted to the Palestine Jewish Colonisation Association; the difficulties which had arisen in connection with the claims of about 170 Arab families resident on part of the land having been settled after prolonged negotiations. The town of Tel-Aviv is expanding with remarkable rapidity. The population, which was about 2,500 in 1920, is now estimated at over 25,000, and for some time past new houses have been completed at an average rate of two a day. There is much building activity also in Haifa and Jerusalem and their suburbs. The Bio-Chemical Faculty, and the Institute of Jewish Studies, of the

HebrewUniversity at Jerusalem have been inaugurated.






Together with economic development came the entrenchment of democratic political institutions, as the Peel Commission underscored in its 1937 report:


The Jewish National Home is no longer an experiment. The growth of its

population has been accompanied by political, social and economic

developments along the lines laid down at the outset. The chief novelty is the urban and industrial development. The contrast between the modern democratic and primarily European character of the National Home and that of the Arab world around it is striking. The temper of the Home is strongly nationalist. There can be no question of fusion or assimilation between Jewish and Arab cultures.




As to the contribution of the Jewish development to the Palestinian-Arab population, the report states:


The Arab population shows a remarkable increase since 1920, and it has had some share in the increased prosperity of Palestine. Many Arab landowners have benefited from the sale of land and the profitable investment of the purchase money. The fellaheen are better off on the whole than they were in 1920. This Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the National Home. In particular, the Arabs have benefited from social services which could not have been provided on the existing scale without the revenue obtained from the Jews.




The Arab claims that the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land cannot be maintained. Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamps and uncultivated when it was bought.

The Jews contribute more per capita to the revenues of Palestine than the Arabs, and the Government has thereby been enabled to maintain public services for the Arabs at a higher level than would otherwise have been possible.




The Arabs let this land go to wreck and ruin.


The fact that prior to the Jewish migration, Palestine was virtually empty and desolate is also supported by numerous accounts provided by travellers, archaeologists and diplomats of the 18th and 19th Centuries. A list of these may be found, inter alia, on the pro-Israeli Web site of EretzYisroel as well as on pp 41-44 of:

Netnyahu, Benjamin. Durable Peace. New York: Warner Books, 2000.


Of all the travellers’ accounts, the best known is Mark Twain’s journalistic report of his 1867 tour of Palestine and other countries. Unlike the other accounts mentioned, which are virtually inaccessible to the average reader, Mark Twain’s book is on the shelves of many a public library. Following are a few quotations from:


From Mark Twain. The Innocents Abroad. Pleasantville (NY): Readers Digest, 1990 (first published 1869).432 pp.


There is not a solitary village throughout its [the valley at the foot of MountTabor] whole extent – not for thirty miles in either direction.


There are two or three small clusters of Beduin tents, but not a single

permanent habitation. One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten

human beings. (P. 311)






The further we went [on the way from Samaria to Jerusalem] the hotter the sun got and the more rocky and bare, repulsive and dreary the landscape became. There could not have been more fragments of stone strewn broadcast over this part of the world if every ten square feet of the land had been occupied by a separate and distinct stonecutter’s establishment for an age. There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country. No landscape exists that is more tiresome to the eye than that which bounds the approaches to Jerusalem… (P. 358)


Of all the lands there are for dismal scenery, I think Palestine must be the prince. The hills are barren, they are dull of color, they are

unpicturesque in shape. The valleys are unsightly deserts fringed with a feeble vegetation that has an expression about it of being sorrowful and despondent. The Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee sleep in the midst of a vast stretch of hill and plain wherein the eye rests upon no pleasant tint, no striking object, no soft picture dreaming in a purple haze or mottled with the shadows of the clouds. Every outline is harsh, every feature is distinct, there is no perspective–distance works no

enchantment here. It is a hopeless, dreary, heartbroken land.


Small shreds and patches of it must be very beautiful in the full flush of spring, however, and all the more beautiful by contrast with the farreaching desolation that surrounds them on every side. I would like much to see the fringes of the Jordan in springtime, and Shechem, Esdraelon, Ajalon, and the borders of Galilee but even then these spots would seem mere toy gardens set at wide intervals in the waste of a limitless desolation.




Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes. Over it broods the spell of a curse that has withered its fields and fettered its energies. Where Sodom and Gomorrah reared their domes and towers, that solemn sea now floods the plain, in whose bitter waters no living thing exists – over whose waveless surface the blistering air hangs motionless and dead – about whose borders nothing grows but seeds, and scattering tufts of cane, and that treacherous fruit that promises refreshment to parching lips, but turns to ashes at the touch.


Nazareth is forlorn


Nazareth is forlorn; about that ford of Jordan where the hosts of Israel entered the Promised Land with songs of rejoicing, one finds only a squalid camp of fantastic Bedouins of the desert; Jericho the accursed lies a moldering ruin today, even as Joshua’s miracle left it more than three thousand years ago; Bethlehem and Bethany, in their poverty and their humiliation, have nothing about them now to remind one that they once knew the high honor of the Saviour’s presence; the hallowed spot where the shepherds watched their flocks by night, and where the angels sang, “Peace on earth, good will to men,” is untenanted by any living creature and unblessed by any feature that is pleasant to the eye.




(Fits with later Karl Marx visit and report on Jerusalem)


Renowned Jerusalem itself, the stateliest name in history, has lost all

its ancient grandeur and is become a pauper village… Palestine is

desolate and unlovely… (P. 394-5)



This is a surprise to many but it is now covered by quite a few, just seach “Marx in Jerusalem”

An example is from Breitbart:

According to the godfather of communism, Karl Marx, the Palestinian claim that Jews only had a significant presence after the advent of  modern Zionism is false.  Marx, who was the grandson of two rabbis but then became a virulent anti-Semite,  (as demonstrated in his essay “On the Jewish Question”)  wrote an article for the New York Daily on April 15, 1854 which described Jerusalem at that time. This was because the Crimean War between Russia and the Ottoman Empire was triggered by a dispute over the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. In the article, Marx wrote:

“[Jerusalem’s] sedentary population numbers about 15,500 souls, of whom 4,000 are Mussulmans [Muslims] and 8,000 Jews . . . the Mussulmans, forming about a quarter of the whole, consisting of Turks, Arabs, and Moors, are, of course, the masters in every respect … Nothing equals the misery and the suffering of the Jews of Jerusalem, inhabiting the most filthy quarter of the town, called hareth-el-yahoud … between the Zion and the Moriah …[They are] the constant objects of Mussulman oppression and intolerance, insulted by the Greeks, persecuted by the Latins [Catholics], and living only on the scanty alms transmitted by their European brethren.”

The notion that the founder of Marxism acknowledged the Jewish claim to the city demographically must be highly disturbing to the present-day Marxists, who are ardent opponents of the notion that Jerusalem is a Jewish city.

For example, Medea Benjamin, the Marxist founder of Code Pink, whose organization was lauded by Michelle Obama as recently as last month, led chants against Israel outside the White House in May, 2011. In 2009, she announced that she was going to deliver a letter to Obama from the deputy foreign minister of Hamas. And, of course, Bill Ayers, Obama’s Marxist mentor, joined with Code Pink as a sponsor of the terrorist Gaza Flotilla.

More than that, the article from Marx demonstrates that the widespread myth that Jews were treated extraordinarily well under Muslims is just that – a myth. If the founder of Marxism could acknowledge as much, perhaps it’s time for today’s Marxists to re-examine their preconceived notions about the legitimacy of Jewish claims.




What has all this to do with the Jewish claim to Palestine and the question of a second Palestinian- Arab state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza?


The connection is this: the Palestinian-Arab population might have had a claim of equal validity to that of the Jews, had they populated and developed the land. But in fact, during the occupation of Palestine by the Ottoman Empire, the Palestinian Arabs left the country unpopulated and desolate, relative to its potential. The Jews, on the other hand, had a historical claims and international backing to their claim and proceeded to realize the potential of the land by settling and developing it.







The notion of the Palestinian Arabs as a nation is a recent invention. Palestine’s Arabs are indistinguishable from the Arabs in neighbouring countries, especially the Arabs in Jordan, which is in effect a Palestinian-Arab state. Creating a second Palestinian-Arab state, which would be the 22nd Arab state, is unjustified.


The questions of the “Palestinians” as a nation and “Palestine” as a state are interwoven, but for discussion purposes it is useful to separate the two. The current piece deals with the “Palestinians”, while the next article will deal with “Palestine”.




The most convincing substantiation of the statement asserting that the Palestinians are an integral part of the Arabs and not a distinct nation, is the PLO Charter itself, available from many web site, such as that of YaleLawSchool. The text of the PLO charter reads:

Article 1. Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.

Article 14. The destiny of the Arab nation, and indeed Arab existence

itself, depend upon the destiny of the Palestine cause. From this

interdependence springs the Arab nation’s pursuit of, and striving for,

the liberation of Palestine. The people of Palestine play the role of the vanguard in the realization of this sacred (qawmi) goal.




Another Palestinian-Arab terrorist organization, the PFLP, echoes this view:


The strategic vision of the PFLP is based on the following:

1. liberation from Israeli occupation

2. construction of a democratic society

3. recognition that the Palestinian people are an integral part of the

Arab Nation




A much-quoted passage from an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein underscores this point. The following quotation is from an article entitled “Palestinian people do not exist”, by Joseph Farah, July 11, 2002:


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.”





In an earlier article, Myths of the Middle East, October 11, 2000, Joseph Farah , states bluntly:


What makes a separate people? Religion, language, culture, garb, cuisine, etc., etc. The Arabs in Palestine speak the same language, practice the same religion, have the same culture, etc., etc., as all the other Arabs.


There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct

Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine

governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the landmass.


During the British Mandate, “Palestinian” was virtually synonymous with “Palestinian-Jewish”, as in “Palestine Zionist Executive”, “Palestine Symphony Orchestra”, “Palestine Post”, etc. On the other hand, the Arabs of Palestine and “Transjordan” used “Arab”, as in “Arab Higher Committee”, “Arab Legion”, “Arab Liberation Army”, “Arab Rebellion of 1936-39”, “Arab National Guard” – almost never “Palestinian”. In the rare case when “Palestine” was used, it was accompanied by “Arab”, as in “Palestine Arab Executive” and “Palestine Arab Party” – not “Palestinian Arab Executive”, etc. The “Palestine National Congress” may be cited as a counter-example, however, this body advocated that Palestine come under Syrian sovereignty: it considered Palestine to be southern Syria.


After WW I, as Britain and France carved up the Middle East, they created the states and/or the boundaries of Iraq, Transjordan, Syria/Lebanon, Palestine and Arabia, and the Arabs in these areas found themselves in different states, even though they were essentially one people.




It is also instructive to note that neither the text of the Mandate nor the King-Crane report of 1919 (which apologists for the Palestinian Arabs quote routinely) make any reference to a “Palestinian people” or a “Palestinian nation”; rather, the terms used are such terms as “the non-Jewish population of Palestine”.


If the Palestinian-Arabs are indeed indistinguishable from other Arabs as this piece contends, then the argument of “self-determination” is invalid, as is the call for a sovereign state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.




For the sake of discussion, assume, however, that the Palestinian-Arabs are a “nation”. In that case, one can argue that Jordan is their country, as the Israeli representative to the UN, Joseph Tekoah, stated in the UN assembly way back on 13 November, 1974:


42. Geographically and ethnically Jordan is Palestine. Historically both the West and East banks of the Jordan river are parts of the Land of Israel or Palestine. Both were parts of Palestine under the British

Mandate until Jordan and then Israel became independent. The population of Jordan is composed of two elements — the sedentary population and nomads.


Both are, of course, Palestinian. The nomad Bedouins constitute a minority of Jordan’s population. Moreover, the majority of the sedentary inhabitants, even on the East Bank, are of Palestinian West Bank origin.


Without the Palestinians, Jordan is a State without a people.


43. That is why when, on 29 April 1950, King Abdullah inaugurated the

commemorative session of the Jordanian Parliament he declared: “I open the session of the Parliament with both banks of the Jordan united by the will of one people, one homeland and one hope”.


44. On 23 August 1959, the Prime Minister of Jordan stated: “We are the

Government of Palestine, the army of Palestine and the refugees of



45. Indeed, the vast majority of Palestinian refugees never left

Palestine, but moved, as a result of the 1948 and 1967 wars, from one part of the country to another. At the same time, an approximately equal number of Jewish refugees fled from Arab countries to Israel.


46. It is, therefore, false to allege that the Palestinian people has been deprived of a State of its own or that it has been uprooted from its national homeland. Most Palestinians continue to live in Palestine. Most Palestinians continue to live in a PalestinianState. The vast majority of Palestinian Arabs are citizens of that PalestinianState.


47. “Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan”, declared on 9 December 1970 the late Dr. Kadri Toukan, a prominent West Bank leader and former Foreign Minister of Jordan.


48. Mr. Anwar Nuseibe, another Palestinian West Bank personality and a

former Jordanian Defence Minister, stated on 23 October 1970:

“The Jordanians are also Palestinians. This is one State. This is one

people. The name is not important. The families living in Salt, Irbid and Karak maintain not only family and matrimonial ties with the families in Nablus and Hebron. They are one people.”


50. Even if the appellation “Palestinian” were confined to the West Bank, there is today, as already indicated, an overwhelming preponderance of Palestinians of West Bank descent in the population of the East Bank, as well as in the Jordanian Government. For instance, Queen Alia, Prime Minister Rifa’i, more than half of the Cabinet Ministers and of the members of Parliament, the Speaker of the Parliament, the Mayor of Amman, all hail from the West Bank.





“Palestine” is a geographic term, assigned to a region, and historically, has never referred to an Arab state. This underscores that a “Palestinian nation” does not exist except as an anti-Israel propaganda card. Hence, creating another sovereign Arab state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is unjustified for an invented nation.


In his article, “The year the Arabs discovered Palestine”, Daniel Pipes traces the beginnings of Palestinian-Arab nationalism as follows:


Palestine, then [prior to 1920] a secular way of saying Eretz Yisra’el or Terra Sancta, embodied a purely Jewish and Christian concept, one utterly foreign to Moslems, even repugnant to them.




This distaste was confirmed in April 1920, when the British occupying

force carved out a “Palestine.” Moslems reacted very suspiciously, rightly seeing this designation as a victory for Zionism. Less accurately, they worried about it signaling a revival in the Crusader impulse. No prominent Moslem voices endorsed the delineation of Palestine in 1920; all protested it.


Instead, Moslems west of the Jordan directed their allegiance to Damascus, where the great-great-uncle of Jordan’s King Abdullah II was then ruling; they identified themselves as Southern Syrians.


Interestingly, no one advocated this affiliation more emphatically than a young man named Amin Husseini. In July 1920, however, the French overthrew this Hashemite king, in the process killing the notion of a Southern Syria.




Isolated by the events of April and July, the Moslems of Palestine made

the best of a bad situation. One prominent Jerusalemite commented, just

days following the fall of the Hashemite kingdom: “after the recent events in Damascus, we have to effect a complete change in our plans here.


Southern Syria no longer exists. We must defend Palestine.”

Following this advice, the leadership in December 1920 adopted the goal of establishing an independent Palestinian state. Within a few years, this effort was led by Husseini.




What, one may ask, was the history of Palestine before 1920? wasn’t it a Palestinian-Arab state since the 7th Century? To substantiate the thesis that Palestine never was a state, suffice it to review the Palestinian-Arab version of history, from the Arab invasion until WW I. This history, given in the Palestinian site, Palestine Remembered, is quoted below if full, so that the arguments of “selective quoting” and “quoting out of context” cannot be raised.


638 – Arabs under the Caliph ‘Umar capture Palestine from Byzantines.

661-750 – Umayyad caliphs rule Palestine from Damascus. Dynasty descended from Umayya of Meccan tribe of Quraysh. Construction of Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem by Caliph ‘Abd al-Malik (685-705). Construction of al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem by Caliph al-Walid I (705-715).

750-1258 – ‘Abbasid caliphs rule Palestine from Iraq. Dynasty, founded by Abu al-‘Abbas al-Saffah, who is descended from ‘Abbas, uncle of the


969 – Fatimid dynasty, claiming descent from the Prophet’s daughter Fatima and her cousin ‘Ali, rule Palestine from Egypt. They proclaim themselves caliphs in rivalry to the ‘Abbasids.

1071 – Saljuqs, originally from Isfahan, capture Jerusalem and parts of

Palestine, which remains officially within the ‘Abbasid Empire.

1099-1187 – Crusaders establish the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem.

1187 – Kurdish general Saladin (Salah al-Din who was born in Takrit

northern Iraq, the birth place of Saddam Hussein too), son of Ayyub, the sultan of Mosul, defeats Crusaders at Hittin in northern Palestine and recaptures Jerusalem. The Ayyubid dynasty rules Palestine from Cairo.

1260 – Mamluks succeed Ayyubids, ruling Palestine from Cairo; defeat

Mongols at Battle of ‘Ayn Jalut near Nazareth.

1291 – Mamluks capture final Crusader strongholds of Acre and Caesarea.

1516-1917 – Palestine incorporated into the Ottoman Empire with its

capital in Istanbul.

1832-1840 – Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha of Egypt occupies Palestine. Ottomans

subsequently reassert their rule.

1876-1877 – Palestinian deputies from Jerusalem attend the first Ottoman

Parliament in Istanbul, elected under a new Ottoman Constitution.

1878 – First modern Zionist agricultural settlement of Petach Tiqwa

established (click here to learn more about Zionist [sic] and its impact on the Palestinian people).

1882-1903 – First wave of 25,000 Zionist immigrants enters Palestine,

coming mainly from eastern Europe.

1882 – Baron Edmond de Rothschild of Paris starts financial backing for

Jewish settlement in Palestine.

1887-1888 – Palestine divided by Ottomans into the districts (sanjaks) of Jerusalem, Nablus, and Acre. The first was attached directly to Istanbul, the others to the wilayet of Beirut.

1896 – Theodor Herzl, an Austro-Hungarian Jewish journalist and writer,

publishes Der Judenstaat, advocating establishment of a Jewish state in

Palestine or elsewhere.

1896 – Jewish Colonization Association, founded in 1891 in London by

German Baron Maurice de Hirsch, starts aiding Zionist settlements in


1897 – First Zionist Congress in Switzerland issues the Basle Program

calling for the establishment of a “home for the Jewish people in

Palestine.” It also establishes the World Zionist Organization (WZO) to

work to that end.

1901 – Jewish National Fund (JNF) set up by fifth Zionist Congress in

Basle to acquire land for WZO; land acquired by JNF to be inalienably

Jewish, and exclusively Jewish labor to be employed on it, click here to read to Zionist [sic] apartheid & racist quotes.

1904-1914 – Second wave of about 40,000 Zionist immigrants increases

Jewish population in Palestine to about 6% of total. Since the inception of Zionism in [sic] claimed that Palestinian was an empty country, click here to read our rebuttal to this argument.

1909 – Establishment of the first kibbutz, based exclusively on Jewish

labor. Tel Aviv founded north of Jaffa.

1914 – World War I starts.


(To learn more about the anti-Israeli site quoted above, check out the mission statement of “The Home Of All Ethnically Cleansed Palestinians”).


Even this Palestinian-Arab version of history has no hint whatever of a Palestinian state, and as a previous article indicated, history also shows no indication of a “Palestinian-Arab nation” either. Against the historical background of neither a “Palestinian-Arab state” nor a “Palestinian-Arab nation” stands the Jewish claim of historical nationhood in Palestine, recognized internationally by such solid documents as the League of Nations mandate and the US Congress endorsement of the Mandate document in June, 1922.


Is it not clear that the Jewish claim to sovereignty over Palestine is infinitely

stronger than the Palestinian-Arab claim?




Israel is in possession of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha) as a consequence of the 1967 defensive war that Israel was forced into. The areas of Judea/Samaria and Gaza were occupied from 1948 to 1967 by Jordan and Egypt, respectively, but no calls for “Palestinian sovereignty” were heard during that period. Since Jordan and Egypt have renounced their claims to these territories, Israel has the strongest claim to Yesha.


The 1967 War is discussed and documented so extensively that only a brief summary is needed to establish the foregoing argument.




Israel’s war against Jordan as a defensive war may be established by recalling that on the day the Israeli war against Egypt started, Israel warned King Hussein explicitly not to intervene on the side of Israel’s enemies. This statement is substantiated by an official Israeli document sent to King Hussein on June 5, 1967, via a UN official, General Odd Bull. The document is available from the site of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, MFA:


On the morning of 5 June 1967, Prime Minister Eshkol transmitted through the Chief of Staff of UNTSO a message to King Hussein asking Jordan to refrain from hostilities. Text:


We are engaged in defensive fighting on the Egyptian sector, and we shall not engage ourselves in any action against Jordan, unless Jordan attacks us. Should Jordan attack Israel, we shall go against her with all our might.


According to Gilbert, p. 385, This message was also conveyed by two other channels: the

Israeli/Jordanian Mixed Armistice Commission and the US Embassy in Tel Aviv. The fact that Jordanian forces opened fire, shelling Jerusalem, and then began to advance, proves the defensive nature of Israel’s war on Jordan beyond any doubt.




The case against Egypt is based, first, on the casus belli created by Nasser when he closed the straights of Tiran to Israeli shipping on May 22, 1967. This is confirmed by

Nasser’s speech :


On 23 May 1967, Egypt announced that the Straits of Tiran had been closed and warned Israeli shipping that it would be fired upon if it attempted to break the blockade. The next day, Egypt announced that the Straits had been mined. Text of speech by President Nasser announcing the closure of the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping, 23 May 1967:

Yesterday the armed forces occupied Sharin ash-Shaykh. What does this

mean? It is an affirmation of our rights, of our sovereignty over the Gulf of Aqaba, which constitutes Egyptian territorial waters. Under no

circumstances can we permit the Israeli flag to pass through the Gulf of Aqaba.


On May 23, the closure of the straits of Tiran was condemned by President Johnson in these words:


The United States considers the gulf to be an international waterway and feels that a blockade of Israeli shipping is illegal and potentially   disastrous to the cause of peace. The right of free and innocent passage of the international waterway is a vital interest of the entire international community.


Even had the closing of the Straits of Tiran been the only cause of Israel’s war on Egypt, it would have been enough to justify the war as one of self-defense. In fact, this closure was accompanied by a long series of other belligerent steps. On May 17, 1967, Nasser ordered the withdrawal of the UN buffer presence (UNEF, or United Nations Emergency Force) which was placed in the Sinai after the 1956 War. This was preceded by deploying Egyptian troops in the Sinai starting May 13, 1967, and by threats of annihilation against Israel. For Israel, the military pact among Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq, with the explicit objective of annihilating Israel, amounted to a noose, especially when the pact

members started moving troops towards Israel’s borders. Finally, Nasser resumed the murderous infiltration of the terrorist Fidayin, an act that was among the prime causes of the 1956 War. During the week of April 24, 1967, for example, Egyptian-controlled terrorists sabotaged a main road leading to Beersheba.


The following chronology is culled from Gilbert, Ch 21-22, and demonstrates the foregoing narrative.


May 13, 1967 – Nasser moves large numbers of troops into the Sinai.

May 16, 1967 – Nasser demands the withdrawal of UNEF; UN’s Secretary General, U Thant agrees immediately. Withdrawal completed by May 19, 1967.

May 22, 1967 – Nasser closes the Straits of Tiran, generating an unambiguous casus belli. (On March 1, 1957, Israel announced that closing the straits would be considered casus belli.)

May 25, 1967 – Egyptian armoured units moved to Sinai.

May 26, 1967 – Nasser declares, “our basic objective will be to destroy Israel”.

May 30, 1967 – During his visit to Cairo, King Hussein joins the Syrian-Egyption pact against Israel.


Israel was now surrounded on three sides.


May 31, 1967 – Iraqi troops move to Egypt to support a possible war. (On June 4, Iraq joined the pact of Egypt/Syria/Jordan.)




Israel’s case against Syria is based on Syria serving as a launching pad for Palestinian-Arab terrorists and on Syria’s continual harassment of Israeli settlements in the valley below the Golan Heights. So intense did the shelling become, that the civilian population had to pass many a night in underground shelters. A favourite tactic of the Syrian-controlled terrorists was mining roads, as in the incident on

May 8, when an Israeli car hit a mine on the road to Tiberias. Gilbert, Ch 21, describes the situation as follows:


The first three months of 1967 were marked by repeated Syrian artillery

bombardments and cross-border raids on the Israeli settlements in the

north. Israeli air raids against Syrian positions on the Golan Heights

would result in a few weeks’ quiet, but then the attacks would begin

again. On 7 April 1967 Syrian mortars on the Golan Heights began a barrage of fire on kibbutz Gadot… More than 200 shells were fired before Israeli tanks moved into positions from which they could reach the Syrian mortars.


As the Israeli tanks opened fire, the Syrian artillery did likewise.

Firing quickly spread along the border to the north and south of Gadot.


Then Israeli warplanes – Mirage fighter-bombers purchased from France –

flew over the Syrian border and over the Golan Heights, strafing several Syrian strongholds and artillery batteries. Fifteen minutes later Syrian warplanes – Soviet MiG-21s – took on the Israeli planes in aerial combat.


Within a few minutes, six MiGs had been shot down and the rest chased

eastwards to Damascus… One Israeli plane was shot down.


Following the Gadot clash, Fatah renewed its campaign inside Israel, using the Syrian border as a conduit. On April 29 a water pipeline was blown up, and a few days later mines were laid on the main road leading north from Tiberias, damaging an Israeli army truck.




Israeli control of Judea, Samaria and Gaza are a direct consequence of the defensive war that Israel was forced into in 1967. In the course of a meeting in Rabat, 28 October, 1974, the Arab Summit adopts a resolution recognizing the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.


This in fact meant that the former occupiers of Judea/Samaria and Gaza (Jordan and Egypt, respectively) officially renounced their claims over these territories.





When Germany lost WW I to the Allies, she lost Alsace-Lorraine to France. When Germany lost WW II, she lost East Prussia.


There is a price to pay for aggression and for being defeated in a war in which the opponent is exercising self-defence. The Arabs, and especially the Palestinian Arabs, should not be exempt from the realities of life.


The issue of Israeli claims over Judea, Samaria and Gaza, together with the associated issues of “occupied Arab land” and “illegal settlements”, will be dealt with in greater detail in a forthcoming article in this series.



Arabs rejected sovereign state




8. The Palestinian Arabs had at least three opportunities to establish their own sovereign state by peaceful means: the Peel commission plan of 1937 which the Arabs rejected; the UN partition plan of 1948, to which the Arabs reacted by engaging in war; and the Barak/Clinton offer of July 2000/January 2001, to which the Palestinian Arabs reacted by igniting Intifada II.

(The Oslo Accords of 1993, stipulated self government, i.e., autonomy, and not sovereignty.) By their actions, the Palestinian Arabs have forfeited any right they might have had to a sovereign state in Palestine.

It is common knowledge that the Palestinian Arabs had an opportunity to establish an independent state in Palestine both in 1937, when the Peel Commission recommended the partition solution, and in 1947, when the UN General Assembly reached the same conclusion by a 33-13 majority (with 10 abstentions, including Bevin’s UK); in both cases, the Palestinian Arabs rejected the proposals that would have given them a sovereign state. Since these facts are common knowledge, they warrant only a brief discussion.




To substantiate that the Palestinian Arabs rejected the Peel Commission’s partition plan, suffice it to quote any of the relevant Palestinian-Arab web sites. For example, the Islamic Association for Palestine informs us that:

At the height of the 1936-39 disturbances, a royal commission of inquiry came to Palestine from London to investigate the roots of the Arab-Jewish conflict and to propose solutions. The commission, headed by Lord Robert Peel, heard a great deal of testimony in Palestine, and in July 1937 issued its recommendations: to abolish the Mandate and partition the country between the two peoples. Only a zone between Jaffa and Jerusalem would remain under the British mandate and international supervision.

The Jewish state would include the coastal strip stretching from Mount

Carmel to south of Be’er Tuvia, as well as the JezreelValley and the

Galilee. The Arab state was to include the hill regions, Judea and

Samaria, and the Negev. Until the establishment of the two states, the

commission recommended, Jews should be prohibited from purchasing land in the area allocated to the Arab state.

[T]he Arabs rejected the proposal and refused to regard it as a solution.

The plan was ultimately shelved.

Considering the tiny sliver of land that would have been assigned to the Jewish state under the Peel plan, one has to marvel at the malevolence and pettiness of the Palestinian Arabs; it would appear that they adopted the most bizarre version of a “dog in the manger” in order to frustrate the Jewish national aspiration even at the cost of depriving themselves of a sovereign state.




Turning to the Palestinian Arabs’ rejection of the UN partition plan of 29 November 1947, the following quotation is from


The struggle by Jews for a Jewish state in Palestine had begun in the late 19th cent[ury] and had become quite active by the 1930s and 40s. The militant opposition of the Arabs to such a state and the inability of the British to solve the problem eventually led to the establishment (1947) of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, which devised a plan to divide Palestine into a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a small internationally administered zone including Jerusalem. The General Assembly adopted the recommendations on Nov. 29, 1947. The Jews accepted the plan; the Arabs rejected it.




The events surrounding the Barak/Clinton offer to the Palestinians at Camp David (July 2000) and in the negotiations that followed (to January 2001), were common knowledge during the first year after

Arafat walked away from the negotiating table, but subsequently, the Palestinian-Arabs activated their disinformation machine to the point that some of Arafat’s apologists summoned the audacity to deny the details of the offer as they were known at the time. For this reason, it may be useful to deal with this chapter in greater detail, in order to substantiate the statement that the PA did, indeed, walk away from a most generous offer, and opt instead for the violence that still continues.

An authoritative account comes from Clinton’s Middle East envoy, Dennis Ross, who participated in the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks personally. In an interview with Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard and with Brit Hume of Fox news, dated April 23, 2002, Dennis Ross said:


ROSS: The ideas were presented on December 23 by the president, and they basically said the following: On borders, there would be about a 5 percent annexation in the West Bank for the Israelis and a 2 percent swap. So there would be a net 97 percent of the territory that would go to the Palestinians.

On Jerusalem, the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the

capitol of the Palestinian state.

On the issue of refugees, there would be a right of return for the

refugees to their own state, not to Israel, but there would also be a fund of $30 billion internationally that would be put together for either compensation or to cover repatriation, resettlement, rehabilitation costs.

And when it came to security, there would be a international presence, in place of the Israelis, in the JordanValley.

These were ideas that were comprehensive, unprecedented, stretched very

far, represented a culmination of an effort in our best judgment as to

what each side could accept after thousands of hours of debate, discussion with each side.

FRED BARNES, WEEKLY STANDARD: Now, Palestinian officials say to this day that Arafat said yes.

ROSS: Arafat came to the White House on January 2. Met with the president, and I was there in the Oval Office. He said yes, and then he added reservations that basically meant he rejected every single one of the things he was supposed to give.

HUME: What was he supposed to give?

ROSS: He supposed to give, on Jerusalem, the idea that there would be for the Israelis sovereignty over the Western Wall, which would cover the areas that are of religious significance to Israel. He rejected that.

HUME: He rejected their being able to have that?

ROSS: He rejected that.

He rejected the idea on the refugees. He said we need a whole new formula, as if what we had presented was non-existent.


He rejected the basic ideas on security. He wouldn’t even countenance the idea that the Israelis would be able to operate in Palestinian airspace.

You know when you fly into Israel today you go to Ben Gurion. You fly in over the West Bank because you can’t — there’s no space through

otherwise. He rejected that.

So every single one of the ideas that was asked of him he rejected.

HUME: Now, let’s take a look at the map. Now, this is what — how the

Israelis had created a map based on the president’s ideas. And…

ROSS: Right.

HUME: … what can we — that situation shows that the territory at least is contiguous. What about Gaza on that map?

ROSS: The Israelis would have gotten completely out of Gaza.

ROSS: And what you see also in this line, they show an area of temporary Israeli control along the border.

HUME: Right.

ROSS: Now, that was an Israeli desire. That was not what we presented. But we presented something that did point out that it would take six years before the Israelis would be totally out of the JordanValley.

So that map there that you see, which shows a very narrow green space

along the border, would become part of the orange. So the Palestinians

would have in the West Bank an area that was contiguous. Those who say

there were cantons, completely untrue. It was contiguous.

HUME: Cantons being ghettos, in effect…

ROSS: Right.

HUME: … that would be cut off from other parts of the Palestinian state.

ROSS: Completely untrue.

And to connect Gaza with the West Bank, there would have been an elevated highway, an elevated railroad, to ensure that there would be not just safe passage for the Palestinians, but free passage.

HUME: What, in your view, was the reason that Arafat, in effect, said no?

ROSS: Because fundamentally I do not believe he can end the conflict. We had one critical clause in this agreement, and that clause was, this is the end of the conflict.

Arafat’s whole life has been governed by struggle and a cause. Everything he has done as leader of the Palestinians is to always leave his options open, never close a door. He was being asked here, you’ve got to close the door. For him to end the conflict is to end himself.


This account has been confirmed numerous times. For example, in January, 2002, Clinton visited Israel. According to a report in Ha’Aretz, dated January 21, 2002:


Former U.S president Bill Clinton said that Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat had missed a “golden opportunity” for peace and called on Israelis and Palestinians to be prepared to compromise in order to achieve the dream of peace. Clinton was speaking at a ceremony at the TelAvivUniversity after receiving an honorary degree Sunday.


Referring to the failed Camp David peace talks held just before the

outbreak of violence in October 2000, Clinton said “I think we have the

outlines of a reasonable settlement, last year I believe Chairman Arafat missed a golden opportunity to make that agreement, I think the violence and terrorism which followed were not inevitable and have been a terrible mistake.”


Another relevant document is the so called EU description of the outcome of permanent status talks at Taba. As a staunch supporter of the Arabs, the EU can hardly be accused of upholding the Israeli line; still, the “EU description” is consistent with that given by Dennis Ross.


Occasionally, it appears that the truth, as presented above, is even penetrating the minds of some of the Palestinian-Arab supporters. For example, on Thursday November 15, 2001, Reuters reported:


Palestinian political analyst Ghassan al-Khatib said … Israel and the

Palestinians would have reached a deal during U.S.-sponsored talks in July 2000 if the Palestinian Authority had agreed to compromise on the rights of refugees.


The peace summit at the Camp David presidential retreat collapsed due to disagreements on refugees and the final status of Jerusalem. The

Palestinian uprising erupted two months later.


By and large, however, the Palestinian-Arab apologists prefer to indulge in misinformation rather than face the facts. They have even found a junior pro-Arab US official, Robert Malley, to support their case (see, for example, Malley’s comments and response by Dennis Ross)


In my opinion, any fair-minded observer would have to conclude that the acts and behaviour of the Palestinian Arabs prove that they were not interested in a sovereign state; rather, their interest has concentrated on acts of spite against the Palestinian Jews, rejecting at least three opportunities to have a sovereign state.


Origin of the Arab population in Palestine


The growth of the Arab population in Palestine was, in great measure, a consequence of Arab immigration, attracted to Palestine from the surrounding Arab lands because of the development initiated by the Jews. The British authorities turned a blind eye to this migration, while placing severe restrictions on Jewish immigration into Palestine.




The evidence to corroborate the foregoing statement has been in the public domain for decades, as the information was made available to the League of Nations (LoN) Mandates Commission and recorded officially. Still, even supporters of Israel advocacy have used this information only rarely. The object of this article is (1) to review the evidence and (2) to explain the significance of the point in the

context of opposing the creation of a second Palestinian-Arab state.


In using source material for the purpose of this series, I prefer web-based, primary sources, so that readers can verify the information for themselves. In the case of this particular article, primary-source material would have meant the British Mandatory reports which the authorities submitted to the Mandates Commission of the LoN, as well as the complete texts of reports and testimony of the Peel Commission, the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, etc. Unfortunately, most of this material is

either not posted at all, or posted by UNISPAL, the UN organ designed to disseminate Palestinian-Arab propaganda. Consequently, the reports UNISPAL posted are truncated, and there is ample evidence that the truncation is tendencious and biassed. For this reason, much of the information cited below comes from the research done by Joan Peters (see complete reference at article’s end).




To begin, let us examine the web-based evidence posted by UNISPAL, restricting our examination to the years 1931-1935.


Throughout the mandate, there was a measure of legal immigration of Arabs which the mandatory authorities included under “non-Jews”. For example, the 1931 submission to the LoN reported that close to a quarter of all immigrants for 1927-1930 were “non-Jews”:


Immigration into Palestine has on the whole remained relatively constant during the past five years. 5,533 immigrants, of whom 4,075 were Jews, received permission to settle in Palestine in 1931. The average for the previous four years is 4,920 (3,771 Jews).

For the period ending in 1947, Joan Peters, p. 255, cites the figure of 27,300 legal non-Jewish immigrants.




Additionally, there was a measure of illegal Arab immigration that even the British were unable to conceal. The mandatory authorities had to provide data on deportations of illegal Arab immigrants, which proved ipso facto that illegal Arab immigration did occur and was known to the British administration. For example, the 1934 British report to the LoN states:


The number of persons deported during the year for immigration offences

was 2,407, of whom 772 were Jews.


To put these figures in context, one should recall that (according to Joan Peters), the British went out of their way to encourage illegal Arab immigration, and only used deportations in the most blatant and extreme cases. Hence, the fact that the vast majority of deportees were illegal Arab immigrants tells us more about the extent of this illegal immigration and less about the British efforts to expel the “illegals”.


Third, in questioning the British representatives, the Mandates Commission members who examined the reports exposed the large-scale illegal immigration that took place from Trans-Jordan and Syria (especially, from the Hauran district). For example, the minutes of the June 5, 1935 examination of the British representatives includes these passages:


M. ORTS [one of the Mandates Commission members who examined the Britishreport] wondered whether the free admission of Trans-Jordanians into Palestine did not lead to abuses, since it was a fact that a certain number of Trans-Jordanians remained in the country. He wished to ask whether the Palestine Government could be certain that Arabs entering

Palestine through Trans-Jordan (and these need not necessarily be Trans-Jordanian Arabs) did not avail themselves of the privilege accorded to the Trans-Jordanians in order to settle down in Palestine.


Lord LUGARD [another Commission member] said that La Syrie had published, on August 12th, 1934, an interview with Tewfik Bey El-Huriani, Governor of the Hauran, who said that in the last few months from 30,000 to 36,000 Hauranese had entered Palestine and settled there. The accredited representative would note the Governor’s statement that these Hauranese had actually “settled”.


M. ORTS said that the Governor had not said that these people had entered via Trans-Jordan; that allegation was made in Jewish circles. His declaration, however, had caused some excitement among the Jews, who saw in it a proof that the mandatory Power was closing its eyes to the entry of Hauranese, while it severely punished illicit Jewish immigration.


Count DE PENHA GARCIA [a third Commission member] observed that… In

actual practice, two mandates were being applied, one to Palestine and the other to Trans-Jordan, the latter being comprised in the former; but while Trans-Jordanians might go freely into Palestine, Jews were not allowed to settle in Trans-Jordan. There could be no doubt that quite a large number of Trans-Jordanians did settle in Palestine — this fact was even admitted in paragraph 36, page 110, of the report for 1934. As Arabs entering Palestine from Trans-Jordan did not require passports, this element of immigration could not be properly gauged by the Mandates Commission…




In her monumental work, Since Time Immemorial (1984), , Joan Peters has collected an impressive array of evidence to support the claim about the Arab immigration into “West Palestine” (Israel, Judea, Samaria and Gaza of today) and in particular, about the Arab migration into the areas of prime Jewish settlement. We now turn to a review of this evidence, which is over and above the UNISPAL evidence we have just documented.


1. Evidence from “secret” correspondence of British mandatory officials. As noted, the British authorities in Palestine applied their “best endeavour” in an attempt to conceal the existence and scope of the Arab illegal immigration into Palestine. In secret correspondence, now declassified (and researched by Joan Peters), it appeared that the British officials made numerous references to illegal

Arab immigration into Palestine; examples from this correspondence are cited by Peters, pp. 270 – 295.


2. Evidence from the Hope Simpson report. (John Hope Simpson headed yet another British investigation of the Palestinian situation; the inquiry followed the Arab riots of 1929 and the report was released in 1930.) Specifically, Joan Peters, pp. 296-299 cites passages which indicate that the Hope Simpson Commission knew about the illegal Arab immigration into Palestine and even acknowledged the injustice it inflicted on the Jewish population.


3. Evidence from the Peel Commission testimony. (The Peel Commission, another group sent to investigate the Palestinian situation, started its hearing in the midst of the Arab 1936-39 riots; the Peel report was released in 1937.) Pages 302-309 of Joan Peters’ work provide quotation from testimony before the commission, testimony which clearly addresses the issue of Arab illegal immigration.


4. Evidence from a report, entitled Survey of Palestine, by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry (AACI). (The AACI was constituted in 1945 and reported in 1946 – another British attempt to kill the Jewish National Home by committee.) According to Joan Peters, pp. 377-379, this document confirms that while the British shut the gates of Palestine to Jewish refugees, thus condemning them to the fires of the Nazi death camps, legal and illegal Arab immigrants were pouring into Palestine.


(However, the quotations given in Joan Peter’s book are from the complete report, not from the summary version which corresponds to the link I cited above.)


5. Evidence from reports by historians, travellers, diplomats and pilgrims about Palestine from the Arab conquest to the 1880’s. These reports, cited on pp. 157-171, and 196-199 indicate that the country was devastated and depopulated during some periods, and re-populated by immigrants from numerous countries at other periods. Throughout, a Jewish population was always present. Villages of Circassians, who were brought to Palestine from the Caucasus by the Ottomans, exist in Israel to this day.

Example of the reports mentioned above are the writings of James Finn and his wife, Elizabeth Finn.


(James was the British consul in Jerusalem, 1846-1863; Elizabeth Finn lived with him in Jerusalem throughout this period. Each authored many books.)


Joan Peters, pp. 197 quotes James Finn as having said in 1860, “From Haifa I learn the arrival of about 6,000 of the Beni Sukhr Arabs at Tiberias…”, “I have omitted to mention the increase of Mahometan agriculturalists and pastoral Arabs from countries of Barbary…”, “The Plain of Esdraelon is full of Turkoman Bedouins…”.


6. Evidence from the 1931 Census of Palestine. On p. 226-229, Joan Peters presents the list of birthplaces and “Languages of habitual use” for the 1931 population of Palestine by religion. Muslims show 27 birthplace caterories (in addition to Palestine), including Syria, Transjordan, Egypt, Hejaz (Arabia), Iraq, Yemen, Algeria, Morocco, Tunis, Albania and Persia (Iran). The list of languages includes 22 categories (in addition to Arabic), including Albanian, Bosnian, Circassian, Hindustani, Kurdis, Persian and Turkish.


7. Studies by geographers and other academics concerning the birthplace of the population in selected Arab villages. Joan Peters (pp. 263-267) quotes several academics who conducted such studies: Prof. Moshe Braver’s 1968 study of 200 villages in Israel is an example. This and other studies quoted confirm the existence of a large population whose birthplace was Egypt and Syria.


8. Demographic evidence. The foregoing evidence is qualitative in nature and may be dismissed by some as being anecdotal. But Joan Peters also provides one attempt to quantified the impact of the Arab immigration.


The pertinent demographic calculation analyses the 1882-1895 population change in Palestine, i.e., the 13-year growth of the settled Moslem population in the area of today’s Israel plus “Yesha”. The change is from 141,000 “settled Moslems” to 252,000, and the increase, 111,000. The upper limit of possible natural increase in the late 19th Century could not exceed 1.5%, and if this rate is applied to the 1882 base population, then the expected number in 1895 would be 170,000 as an upper limit.


This leaves the conclusion that some 82,000 persons out of the 111,000, or about 74% of the increase, are due to immigration, including the children borne to the immigrants. The period 1882-1895

coincides with the beginning of the large-scale Jewish immigration to Palestine and the calculation presented is consistent with the assertion that the Palestinian Arabs are recent immigrants and not the indigenous population “since time immemorial”.


Why is all this so important?  It is to underscore that the Palestinian-Arab argument about their rights to the land, about the Jews being newcomers and usurpers, and about justice to the indigenous population, are ill founded




Peters, Joan. From Time Immemorial. New   York: Harpers and Row, 1984.











Elimination of Israel

Palestinian Arab spokesmen leave no doubt about their intention to destroy, annihilate and eliminate Israel; therefore, creation of a second Palestinian Arab state will not solve the Israeli/Arab conflict.


Of all the arguments presented in this series, the present argument is the easiest to substantiate, for it requires no more than quoting the Palestinian Authority (PA) representatives themselves . Citing recent results from Palestinian-Arab opinion polls adds to the wall of proof, but the actions of the PA speak louder than any words. In this article we will discuss each of these three topics in turn.


Prior to reading the evidence, recall that before the 1993 Oslo Accords, the destruction of Israel was the official policy of the PLO, enshrined in its Charter. In 1974, after the 1973 Arab defeat made it clear that Israel could even withstand a surprise attack, the PLO formulated the “Phased Plan”, which essentially called for the annihilation of Israel piecemeal. With the 1993 Oslo Accords, Israel took an normous risk; in retrospect, taking this risk has proved a major error, as the statements of the PA representatives attest.




Arafat promises worth nothing


The Oslo accords of September, 1993, and particularly the Rabin-Arafat letter exchange, were supposed to put an end to the PLO’s declared objective of annihilating Israel. The Arafat-to-Rabin letter stated:


The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.


The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.


The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.


The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles

constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful

coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace

and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and

other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO

elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent

violations and discipline violators.




But as early as May 10, 1994, Arafat made it clear in a public speech that he has changed nothing in his Phased Plan. On that day, Arafat gave a speech in a Johannesburg mosque, a speech in which he referred to the Oslo Accords, saying (in what is Arafat’s personal version of the English language, grammar and syntax):


This agreement, I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our prophet Mohammed and Koraish, and you remember the Caliph Omar had refused this agreement and [considered] it a despicable truce.


But Mohammed had accepted it and we are accepting now this peace offer.

But to continue our way to Jerusalem, to the first shrine together and not alone.


[The foregoing document comes from the site of Information Regarding Israel’s Security (IRIS), “an independent organization dedicated to informing the public about the security needs of the State of Israel, especially vis-a-vis the current peace process”.]


In his thinly coded message, Arafat was referring to the Khudaibiya agreement made by Mohammed with the Arabian tribe of Koraish, which allowed Mohammed to pray in Mecca, then under Koraish control. The pact, slated to last for ten years, was broken within two years, when the Islamic forces –

having used the peace pact to become stronger – abrogated the agreement and conquered the Koreish tribe. Mohammed then slaughtered the tribe of Koraish and conquered Mecca. Thus, the reference to Koraish implies a tactical agreement of convenience, e.g., the Oslo Accords, which Arafat never intended to keep.


Arafat referred to the analogy with the phoney Koraish agreement in a later interview as well, this time in Arabic, on the Egyptian Orbit TV, on April 18, 1998. As reported by IRIS, Arafat said:


Q: How do you explain that you occasionally ask the Palestinian street not to explode?

Arafat: When the prophet Muhammad made the Khudaibiya agreement, he agreed to remove his title “messenger of Allah” from the agreement. Then, Omar bin Khatib and the others referred to this agreement as the “inferior peace agreement.” Of course, I do not compare myself to the prophet, but I do say that we must learn from his steps and those of Salah a-Din. The peace agreement which we signed is an “inferior peace”.




In this piece, Arafat also refers to Salah a-Din, the Muslim leader who, after a cease-fire, declared a jihad against the Crusaders and captured Jerusalem. This reference can hardly be considered a hint – it is more like an overt declaration of intent to destroy Israel.




In a similar vein, the New Yorker magazine, 9 July 2001, published an article by Jeffrey Goldenberg about his interviews with Barghouti and other PA officials. The web version of the article was posted on the AIJAC site from which we quote this excerpt:


During the interview, I asked Barghouti an obvious question:


What would Israel have to do to bring an end to the uprising?


“We need one hundred per cent of Gaza, one hundred per cent of the West

Bank, one hundred per cent of East Jerusalem, and the right of return for refugees,” he said. I pointed out that former Prime Minister Ehud Barak had, at the Camp David summit last year, offered the Palestinians a series of dramatic concessions: a free Gaza, around ninety per cent of the West Bank, a capital in East Jerusalem, and so on. “No!” Nothing less than a hundred per cent is acceptable, he said. And if you get a hundred per cent? Will that end the conflict? Barghouti smiled, and then said something impolitic for a Fatah man.


“Then we could talk about bigger

things,” he said. Such as? “I’ve always thought that a good idea would be one state for all the peoples,” he said. A secular democratic Palestine?


“We don’t have to call it Palestine,” he replied. “We can call it

something else.”




Feisal Husseini was another PA leader to whom the foregoing article refers:


[I]n his last months Husseini spoke at a conference in Teheran which

brought together leaders of Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad. And in a speech delivered in Beirut in April he said, “We may lose or win, but our eyes will continue to aspire to the strategic goal; namely, Palestine from the river to the sea” – from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. “Whatever we get now cannot make us forget this supreme truth.”



Yet another relevant quotation comes from MEMRI, in the Special Dispatch Series, No. 138, dated October 13, 2000. The Dispatch provides a transcript of a PA TV broadcast of a Friday sermon in the Zayed bin Sultan Aal Nahyan mosque in Gaza. The sermon was broadcast live on the official Palestinian Authority television. The speaker is Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya, Member of the PA appointed “Fatwa Council” and former acting Rector of the Islamic University in Gaza:


“Even if an agreement of Gaza is signed – we shall not forget Haifa, and Acre, and the Galilee, and Jaffa, and the Triangle and the Negev, and the rest of our cities and villages. It is only a matter of time. The weak will not remain forever weak, and the strong will not remain forever strong… If we are weak today … and we are not able to regain our rights, then at least we have to pass on the banner – waving high – to our children and grandchildren…”


IRIS has also posted the following selection of relevant quotes:


“The failed attempt to achieve peace made us realize that the only way to solve the Palestinian problem in a just and comprehensive manner is to implement the PLO’s covenant… meaning a return to the armed struggle, which is the only language the Israelis understand….

“The Fatah movement will not allow the continuation of a situation which is neither war nor peace, imposed on the region by the Israeli and American governments…. The Palestinian people are ready for war. As much as they are experienced in peace, the Palestinian people are experienced in war, where they have yet to fail.”


Ruhi Fatuh, Secretary General of the Palestinian Legislative Council and member of the Revolutionary Council of Fatah, Yasser Arafat’s mainstream faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Fatuh said the return to armed struggle should take place if a Palestinian state is not established by 5 May 1999, when the Israel-PLO accords expire. (Al-Ayyam, 12 June 1998. Translation courtesy of Middle East Media and Research Institute – MEMRI)


“We will turn the territories of the [Palestinian] Autonomy into [the

Israelis’] graveyard. This will be the beginning of the end and a

regression to a state of overall explosion, for which Israel will be held responsible, as it is responsible for the failure of the peace process today.”


Chief Palestinian negotiator Sa’eb Ariqat, saying that if the Israelis

try to re-enter areas under the Palestinian Authority they would not get out alive. (Al-Manar, 8 June 1998. Translation courtesy of MEMRI.)

“Defining the situation with Israel today as peace is a mistake. There is no peace with Israel, which is an imperialistic state by nature….

Rather, it is a truce, mainly because Israel wants to dominate the region and shuns peace with its neighbors. Such was revealed when the idea of a Middle East [economic] market was raised [by Israel].”

Senior advisor to the PLO Executive Committee Jamal Al-Sorani. (Al-

Bayader Al-Siasi, 13 June 1998. Translation courtesy of MEMRI.)


On the Palestinian Covenant:


“…The [Palestinian] National Council did not vote to annul the

[Palestinian] Covenant, but rather announced its readiness to change the Covenant under certain terms. If the terms are met, it will be amended. Otherwise, the Covenant will remain as is. The Covenant has yet to be changed, and this is better understood by the enemy than by our own people….”


Secretary General of the Arab Liberation Front Mahmoud ‘Abbas, otherwise known as Abu ‘Abbas. The Israel-PLO Accords of 1993 required the Palestinian National Council to amend the Covenant, which calls for

Israel’s destruction, with no further conditions attached. (Al-Bilad, 11 June 1998. Translation courtesy of MEMRI.)


On October 13, 2002, F. David Radler, the publisher of the Chicago Sun-Times, wrote about Feisal Husseini, one of Arafat’s ministers:


The late Faisal Husseini, as reported June 24, 2001, by Al-Arabi in Egypt, said: “Had the U.S. and Israel realized, before Oslo, that all that was left of the Palestinian National movement and the Pan-Arab movement was a wooden horse called Arafat or the PLO, they would never have opened their fortified gates and let it inside their walls.” He also stated: “The Oslo agreement, or any other agreement, is just a temporary procedure, or just a step towards something bigger… We distinguish the strategic, long-term goals from the political phased goals, which we are compelled to temporarily accept due to international pressure… [Palestine] according

to the higher strategy [is]: ‘from the river to the sea’.”




Another relevant, recent quotation comes from the Palestinian Authority Imam Sheikh Ibrahim Madhi at the Sheikh ‘Ijlin Mosque in Gaza City, broadcast live on April 12, 2002 by Palestinian Authority television:


We are convinced of the [future] victory of Allah; we believe that one of these days, we will enter Jerusalem as conquerors, enter Jaffa as

conquerors, enter Haifa as conquerors, enter Ramle and Lod as conquerors, the [villages of] Hirbiya and Dir Jerjis and all of Palestine as conquerors, as Allah has decreed ‘They will enter Al-Aqsa Mosque as they have entered it the first time’




A reliable Hadith [tradition] says: ‘The Jews will fight you, but you will be set to rule over them.’ What could be more beautiful than this

tradition? ‘The Jews will fight you’ – that is, the Jews have begun to

fight us. ‘You will be set to rule over them’ – Who will set the Muslim to rule over the Jew? Allah Until the Jew hides behind the rock and the tree.


But the rock and tree will say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, a Jew

hides behind me, come and kill him.’ Except for the Gharqad tree, which is the tree of the Jews.











In considering these statements, one should recall that Arafat, the PA and the appointed clerics have to conceal their intentions as best they can; if this is what is said after attempted concealment, one can easily imagine what they really think. Indeed, an idea of what “they really think” may be deduced from what their people think, as revealed in opinion polls. As one can well surmise, opinion polls do not ask directly whether the Palestinian Arabs intend to eradicate Israel, but proxy questions serve as a good indication of such intent. The following opinion poll

data are extracted from the site of the Jerusalem Media and Communication Center (JMCC), which presents itself as an organization “established in 1988 by a group of Palestinian journalists and researchers to provide information on events in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip.” The data refer to the JMCC opinion-poll data for September 21 – 25, 2002.


As the figures below indicate, a majority of Palestinian-Arabs who had an opinion on the topic (i.e., excluding “no answer”, “don’t know”, etc) oppose “peace negotiations between Palestinians and Israel” (Q2); oppose the “Oslo agreement” (Q4); disagree with the statement “that at a certain point peace will be achieved between Palestinians and Israelis” (Q5); support “the continuation of the al- Aqsa Intifada in the West Bank and Gaza Strip” – by a majority of over 80%! (Q7); “support the

resumption of the military operations against Israeli targets as a suitable response within the current political conditions” (Q13); and support “suicide bombing operations against Israeli civilians” (Q15).


Does one need better proof than Q2 and Q4 to substantiate that the Palestinian-Arab “street” is hell bent on annihilating Israel? How would creating a second Palestinian-Arab state in Yesha change this 120-year tradition of fighting Zionism?


[The numbers in the following tables indicate percentages.]


Q.2 In principle, do you strongly support , Somewhat support, Somewhat

oppose, or Strongly oppose peace negotiations between Palestinians and


Strongly support …7.4

Somewhat support …39.1

Somewhat oppose …23.4

Strongly oppose …28.5

No answer …1.6


Q4. What do you think of the Oslo agreement? Would you say you strongly

support, support, oppose or strongly oppose it?

Strongly support …3.4

Support …25.1

Oppose …35.5

Strongly oppose …30.8

No answer …5.2


Q5. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly

disagree that at a certain point peace will be achieved between

Palestinians and Israelis?

Strongly agree …6.0

Somewhat agree …34.0

Somewhat disagree …30.1

Strongly disagree …23.2

No answer …6.7


Q7. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or

strongly oppose the continuation of the al-Aqsa Intifada in the West Bank

and Gaza Strip?

Strongly support …44.1

Somewhat support …36.5

Somewhat oppose …11.7

Strongly oppose …4.7

No answer …3.0


Q.13 Do you support the resumption of the military operations against

Israeli targets as a suitable response within the current political

conditions, or do you reject it and find it harmful to Palestinian

national interests?

A suitable response within the current political conditions …69.5

I reject it and find it harmful to Palestinian national interests …23.2

Others …0.9

I don’t know …5.4

No answer …1.0


Q.15 What is your feeling towards suicide bombing operations against

Israeli civilians, do you support it or oppose it?

Strongly support …35.1

Somewhat support …29.2

Strongly oppose …18.3

Somewhat oppose …9.4

I don’t know/No opinion …5.9

No answer …2.1


In the final analysis, what counts is not so much what the leader say or what the people think but what the regime actually does. And here the evidence is quite clear. Suffice it to mention that the PA violated every part of the Oslo Accords, especially the articles that prohibit incitement and require termination of terrorism.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s