Arab Israel Conflict - Questions and Solutions - YJ Draiman

Arab Israel Conflict - Questions and Solutions

There is no glib or ready solution to the present confrontation.  Enmity bread over decades cannot be easily defused.  The Arab-Palestinian "refugees" have found their "myth" as Mousa Alami prescribed.  They found an identity in that myth.  And a dream.  But surely a dream of destruction, mayhem and bloodshed, of "injustice" masquerading as justice, of and "rights" based upon deception and falsehoods, cannot and should not continue to capture the sympathy and imagination of the gullible outside world at the expense of the Jews, whose identity the Arab-Palestinians would usurp. 

If Egypt and the late president Anwar Sadat could make peace with Israel, however tenuous, after a saber rattling and the religiously inspired anti-Jewish sentiments that created a warm bond between Egypt and Nazism, then so might the other "moderates" and "rejectionists" in the Arab world today.  Once, during Solomon's reign (965-928 BC), "United Israel" which extended all the way to Iraq, was so "highly honored as the leading state between Egypt and Asia minor," that Egypt's pharaoh "had given his daughter in marriage" to Solomon, for "good diplomatic and political reasons." 

As the minister of agriculture of Syria, an avowed supporter and supportee of the Soviet Union, had illustrated, it was "American" technological assistance that Syria wanted and needed.  But might it have been the irrigation expertise of Israel that he really needed?  The result of the peacemaking process depends greatly on the international community continued adherence to the truth as it is sometimes tacitly acknowledged, and not the totalitarian-sponsored pan-Arab deception and inversion of truth.  To achieve their short-sighted ends -- a "peaceful" piece of the Arab oil action -- some nations among the free world community appear to be buying the turn-speak (false and deceptive propaganda).

For sixty-five years, while the real nature of the Arab "refugee problem" has often been identified, the affluent Arab world has paid only a relative pittance to the care of the "refugees";  on the other hand, prodigious Arab funds have supported terror and violence.  The Arabs have, in addition, rejected every genuine humanitarian attempt to solve the "problem" of their brethren, whose right to dignity of citizenship is their legitimate human right. But The Arab nations chose to use then as a pawn against Israel.

The world community has made the mistake of unwittingly creating a breeding ground of violence and terror.  Through perpetuation of the "humanitarian" conditions of the "temporary" camps, it hoped perhaps to avoid having to exact from the Arab world an attitude towards its refugees that conform to the customary requirements expected from other nations; the penalty for such demand was perceived to be the possible loss of substantial Arab oil benefits (which today has diminished greatly).  The wound was allowed to fester until it began to burst into the terrorism of the PLO and other offspring of the earlier terror tactics in Western Palestine organized by the Mufti after WWI, in consultation with his Nazi soulmates.  Now, the world community is being faced with a Pan-Arab suggestion for another blunder, this one even more difficult to retrieve.  The new "moral" flame is presently offered, to take the place of justice.  Through the deceptive revisionist history of Arab propaganda, it is asserted that Israel must bear the guilt for the Arab "refugees", since the Jews "in 1948 excluded the Arabs from their homeland since time forgotten."  Unfortunately, and perhaps not surprisingly to those sophisticated in the art of politics, the case as it has been falsified and distorted by propaganda does not benefit the "Palestinian" Arab refugees themselves.  As the Palestinian writer Fawaz Turki summed it up, although it was "Arab governments" who "continued to oppose... integration,"  the price for this intransigence and inflexibility was paid by the Arab-Palestinians alone and not by the Arabs.... Pawn politics and indifference were the two foci of a problem of tragic and human dimensions. 

The Arab Soviet distortion has prolonged the refugees frustration, and supports -- indeed rationalize and justifies -- Arab terrorist activities, even against Arab-Palestinians.  The very political process by which the refugees plight has been highlighted has condemned many Arab "refugees" to encampment psychologically if not physically (the situation today in Syria is no different).  However, hundreds of thousands of other Arab "refugees" are already living and working in the critically labor-needy Arab states, in some instances running those countries (Jordan's population is about 75% Arab-Palestinians), and they feel that citizenship is "owed" to them.  Indeed, unpublicized and largely unknown, many are in fact already bona fide citizens.

The present propaganda argument is based on the deceptive "historical claims" of the "native Arab Palestinians on his land" -- now called Israel (The real truth is we all know that the Arabs are the occupiers of Jewish territory).  According to the propaganda claim, it is from the Jewish settled area of Western Palestine that the "Arabs were excluded from their homeland since time forgotten".  That claim cannot be sustained.  If the "historical" claim is measured against documented history, which contradicts that claim, the Arab propagandist and their supporters often shift to an argument based on pragmatics:  the " Arab-Palestinian people" exist, therefore they must have a "homeland".  That argument must run head on into the realities of justice, of Jordon, and the Arab-Jewish exchange of refugee population in 1948 (the Arab state of Jordan consists today over 78% of Jewish Territory). 

The Arabs recognition of how vulnerable was their "return of the Arab refugees" argument inspired the transformation of the "refugee" into a false "historical" claim.  "Arab-Palestinian self-determination" was the "new tool"; claim is based on the specious and misconceived comparison of the "90% Arab-native including Christians etc. and 9%-Jewish population," in all "Palestine"-- what we now know should properly be limited, for comparison, to the Jewish settled area of Western Palestine.  As a few Arab strategists have admitted, the real "refugee" rights could too easily become evident.  The "consequences" of the obvious Arab Jewish refugee exchange of populations were frankly assessed by the Arab writer Sabri Jiryis; "Jews have absorbed the million Jews who were terrorized and expelled from Arab states and the Arab states, in their turn, must settle the Palestinians "Arabs" within their borders and solve their problems."

Although the Arab-born segment of the Jewish population has finally been recognized, inevitably, as the bulk of the "Sephardic" majority within an "Orientalized" Israel, which amounts to over half the current population. Western observers are seldom reminded that the Sephardic Israeli majority is in fact mainly composed of either the descendants or of those who were themselves the Jewish Arab refugees who were terrorized and expelled from Arab-Muslim countries. Thus, the accompanying social problems, the Arab-born Jews' distrust of the Arab world and their Support of a "hard-line" government position toward the Arabs--all conditions that are predictable and logical when seen in context--are not evaluated in context. That the social problems are the results of Israel's attempt to absorb a refugee population at least double to the number of Arabs who purportedly left Israel in 1948--a massive Jewish refugee population that doubled the number of Jews already in Israel in 1948--and that all the Arab-born Jewish refugees converged on the Jewish State at about the same time that the Arabs left, while Israel was improvising its urgent defense against Arab warfare--the connection is rarely if ever made. What was obvious, literal exchange of Jewish and Arab refugee population, which is double the amount of Arab refugees, even if one accepts the inflated Arab counts, goes unrecognized and ignored or is shrugged aside as an unwelcome complication.

Moreover, to judge the attitudes and viewpoints of the million Sephardic Jewish refugees from terror and oppression in Arab lands, who had their all their personal assets confiscated, including businesses, homes and over 120,000 square km. of land, apart from the critically significant historical circumstances that made them that way is as faulty and incomplete as it would be for an observer to try to judge the reactions and activities of American blacks toward civil rights without ever having heard of slavery or the history of the blacks in America and the genesis of the civil rights movement. Yet the Sephardic Jews' attitudes toward their former masters--attitudes born of harsh experience in the Arab lands and the Arabs' continued avowed hostilities toward the dhimmi Jewish state--are scarcely ever related to the bitter history and the circumstances surrounding the pivotal Jewish brutally forced exodus from the Arab world.

Meanwhile the Arab émigré-refugees remain exploited by the Arab leaders in that Arab world, their own milieu. Most are actually already absorbed; a small percentage are still in their camps. All remain without a moderate leadership, and many fear for their lives; were they to take a truly moderate stance, they might well be murdered, as others have been.

One must care about the Arab "Palestinian" peoples, whatever their heritage. They are Arabs and Jews and "others" who have been long abused in a world misled by its torturous deceptive misconceptions. Instead of permitting those Arab "refugees" who are outside of Jordanian Palestine to suffer the planned discrimination of adamant Arab governments in land where many "refugees" have lived for a generation or more, the free world might begin a fair and realistic effort to solve the problem once and for all.

The possibility of solution is there. An Arab Palestinian State already exists in Jordan, many Arab Palestinian carry a Jordanian passport. The other Arab states can be encouraged to make room for those among the Arab refugees who have not yet been absorbed, and to give citizenship in their respective states of asylum to those outside Jordan. There is no bromide here for facile solution, or one that would not be fraught with bitterness and antagonism. Before the India-Pakistan exchange of refugee populations was resolved, years of rancor and violence elapsed.

What must not continue, what cannot be allowed to continue, is the cynical scapegoat-ing of the Jewish State and the Jewish refugees herein, or the sacrifice of the Arab refugees who are, in the name of "humanitarianism," being employed inhumanly as a war weapon against Israel by the Arab world. In the face of these major problems, too many politicians and persons of influence choose to shut their eyes to the facts. Too many refrain from critical analysis of false and deceptive propaganda in order to preserve their illusions about the price of oil. And far too many, the overwhelming bulk of us, had never been furnished with enough data to understand what the problem really was and do not care, since it is easier to be ignorant, than take a logical stand.

A program calculated to furnish incentives to the Arab states and others--a "Marshall-type" plan to cooperate for peace--has been proposed by many eminent bipartisan political figures. Such a program would ---

convert the bilateral peace into a truly regional peace, by demonstrating that "the fruits of peace exceeds the spoils of war." The plan could be financed by all the countries which have a great interest in peace and stability in the Middle East because of their dependency of the oil in that region. it would be based on the knowledge that there is also an Arab dependency upon the free world to continue its present relationship with Arab states. Such a plan ought to create an incentive to solve the problems that stands in the way of regional space.

To the extent that we render aid, it would necessarily be linked with "the settlement of the refugees" or, if they are already settled, then citizenship for the Arab refugees within these various Arab lands. 

The United States has provided over a billion dollars in UNRWA funds over the last fifty-plus years, for what was to have been "temporary relief before settlement."  It is not possible that the fund which has prolonged the refugee status of the "Arab refugee" could be replaced by aid in conjunction with development, and that permanent Arab refugee resettlement in the Arab regions could follow? The Arab world wants the benefits of co-existence with the "West" and therefore a major roll can be played by the United States in helping to resolve the Arab refugee-émigré problem.

All the necessary ingredients exist; recent reports of migrant labor in the Arab states have shown that the Arabs are urgently in need of labor, skilled and unskilled. Within the Arab world there is now an abundance of capital to pay the costs of integrating the refugees. Foreign funds, once freed from no-longer necessary UNRWA camps, could assist the rehabilitation of the Arab refugees. The million Jewish refugees from Arab lands have already been absorbed by the Israelis, but those of their properties that were confiscated would far exceed what even the Arab refugees left behind. The de facto exchange of Arab and Jewish refugee populations is undeniable, a fait accompli. Its recognition by the Arabs should be facilitated with the West's endorsement. Recall the Syrian official's offer to "give land away to workers who come--except the Palestinians," whose "hatred must be directed at Israel." Syria's request for "American technology," along with United States and other Western assistance now in effect or projected in many Arab "rejectionist" states, ought to be reciprocal; cooperation should be enlisted and required from nations that are aided by the United States and the West.

If the Arab world political and unjustified discrimination against its refugees-émigré brothers were to cease, and if the camp indoctrination could no longer act as a catalyst to the rejection of peace with Israel, if the Jordanian-Palestinian state, the Arabs' "displacement" of Jews, and the exchange of populations that took place between Jews and Arabs are all finally understood and recognized by the free world , then the Arab "rejectionist" front dedicated to the Jihad (holy war) against Israel may finally realize that the program of propaganda deception cannot succeed. They may then accede to a policy of genuine moderation, of a kind which in Western sense means toleration and peace.

At long last the Arab refugees would then be allowed the right to live in a more normal environment, to the refugees' optional benefit, and to the ultimate advantage of the Arab host nations. This possibly peaceful and ultimately most humane course of action would entail only a relatively minor financial transaction for the Arab nations. It would dignify the refugees and enable the Arab countries of asylum to observe the universal laws of hospitality and decency toward their refugees. It will also, if done, demonstrate that the Arabs are genuinely concerned for the welfare of their brethren, that they have finally observed the humanitarian requirements expected of any government that wishes to benefit from mutual relationships in the free world, and that they are not primarily interested in utilizing the refugees, human beings, flesh and blood, as their weapon in their war.

Thus far, merely mouthing the deceptive words of turn-speak has achieved an amazing measure of success for the revisionist history and the propaganda of the "Arab Israeli Conflict." As the late PLO-Saiqa (Syrian PLO) leader Zuheir Muhsein observed in PLO strategy discussions in 1974, many nations had already accepted the calculated interchange of images: the Arabs had managed 'to juxtapose the Israeli existence with a 'Palestinian' one.' Muhsein went on to explain the proposed "Independent Palestinian State" on the West Bank aka Judea and Samaria;

Our purpose is a democratic State in the whole of Palestine.... A State in the occupied area will not constitute an obstacle. The contrary is true--it will be a point of departure.... This State will be the backbone of  our struggle against Israel."

The Arabs, through terror and enticement of oil power, actually manipulated the prevention of the Jewish majority that should, as mandated in 1920, have become in turn the sovereign Jewish State of Palestine before WWII. Had the Arabs not succeeded, the "final solution to the Jewish problem" might have been haven, not Holocaust.

The cruelest instance of willful blindness to the nature of ones actions is attributable to British exceedingly restrictive Jewish immigration policy. It is horrifying to learn that the British--a supposedly 'civilized people"--were willing to see Jews in Europe put to death by the Nazis for "fear" of "Arab reaction and comment," the British falsely claimed that "Palestine" had "no more places" for Jews, while at the very same moment the British were imposing "illegal" Arab immigrants by tens of thousands into Palestine to do "necessary" work--work and place that they denied to the Jews.

In the end, Britain's systematic policy of virtual exclusion of Jews had resulted in utter disaster. It was disaster in the eyes of the British because they left Palestine defeated  and in a state of war until today; for the Arabs, who had won a battle against the entry of perhaps six million prospective Palestinian/Israeli Jews, it was disaster then to be faced, ironically, with anathema of a dhimmi nation that the Jews achieved ultimately additionally because of the world's horror at the senseless slaughter of those six million; for the Jews, there was disaster in the tragic timing of Israel's declared sovereignty and independence; had it been unrepressed it would have culminated its control and sovereignty in time to preclude the Holocaust. As it turned out, Israel emerged just in time to gather in not only the survivors of Hitler's savagery, but that great swell of persecuted and terrorized million Arab-born Jews who fled the Arab countries seeking refuge. the probable fate of those terrorized refugees from Arab lands, had the Jewish state been voted down (even-though according to international law and treaties, Israel was reconstituted in 1920 and required majority to take full control) due to lack of numerical majority, became, mercifully, only a matter for abstract speculation.

Today, the explicitly stated Arab goals appear to be gaining credence once again through the medium of false and deceptive propaganda and twisted rhetoric, unquestioned by those of us who haven't known the questions to ask and do not care, and unhindered by many who have guessed. Those who understand the reality ought to demand more.

Throughout the Mandate for Palestine, the British attempted to gain peace by appeasing Arab intimidation and terror. It was a self-imposed intimidation to a perception of oil-power and force that the Western powers themselves in fact evoked. Yet, others are considering a similar catastrophic course. But the lesson ought to be clear by now that the West's continuation of the protracted British policy of submission to Arab pressure has not brought a peaceful life to the region, on the contrary, it inflames the regional conflict for the foreseeable future. As Winston Churchill cautioned in 1939, the acts that we engage in for appeasement to the Arabs today we will have to remedy at a far greater cost and remorse tomorrow.

If someone threatens to kill you or destroy you - it is your duty and obligation to destroy him first, before he destroys you.

No Jew has the right to yield the rights of the Jewish People in Israel - David Ben Gurion

No Jew has the right to yield the rights of
the Jewish People in Israel -
David Ben Gurion
(David Ben-Gurion was the first Prime Minister of Israel and widely hailed as
the State's main founder).
"No Jew has the right to yield the rights
of the Jewish People in Israel.
No Jew has the authority to do so.
No Jewish body has the authority to do so.
Not even the entire Jewish People alive today
has the right to yield any part of Israel.
It is the right of the Jewish People over the generations, a right that under
no conditions can be cancelled.
Even if Jews during a specific period proclaim
they are relinquishing this right, they have neither the power nor the
authority to deny it to future generations.
No concession of this type is binding or
obligates the Jewish People. Our right to the country - the entire country -
exists as an eternal right, and we shall not yield this historic right until
its full and complete redemption is realized."
(David Ben Gurion, Zionist Congress, Basel,
Switzerland, 1937.)
"No country in the world exists today by
virtue of its 'right'.
All countries exist today by virtue of their
ability to defend themselves against those who seek their destruction."
“Man can live about forty days without food,
about three days without water, about eight minutes without air, but only for
one second without hope”

No Jew has the right to yield the rights of the Jewish People in Israel - David Ben Gurion - Draiman

No Jew has the right to yield the rights of
the Jewish People in Israel -
David Ben Gurion

(David Ben-Gurion was the first Prime Minister of Israel and widely hailed as
the State's main founder).
"No Jew has the right to yield the rights
of the Jewish People in Israel.
No Jew has the authority to do so.
No Jewish body has the authority to do so.
Not even the entire Jewish People alive today
has the right to yield any part of Israel.
It is the right of the Jewish People over the generations, a right that under
no conditions can be cancelled.
Even if Jews during a specific period proclaim
they are relinquishing this right, they have neither the power nor the
authority to deny it to future generations.
No concession of this type is binding or
obligates the Jewish People. Our right to the country - the entire country -
exists as an eternal right, and we shall not yield this historic right until
its full and complete redemption is realized."
(David Ben Gurion, Zionist Congress, Basel,
Switzerland, 1937.)
"No country in the world exists today by
virtue of its 'right'.
All countries exist today by virtue of their
ability to defend themselves against those who seek their destruction."
“Man can live about forty days without food,
about three days without water, about eight minutes without air, but only for
one second without hope”

An ingenious example of speech and politics occurred recently in the United Nations Assembly and made the world community smile. - Draiman

An ingenious example of speech and politics occurred recently in the United Nations Assembly and made the world community smile.

A representative from Israel
began: "Before beginning my talk I want to tell you something about Moses."

"When he struck the rock and it brought forth water, he thought, 'What a good opportunity to have a bath!' He then removed all his clothes, put them aside on the rock and entered the water. When he got out and wanted to dress, his clothes had vanished.

A Palestinian had stolen them."

The Palestinian representative jumped up furiously and shouted, "What are you talking about? The Arab-Palestinians weren't there then."

The Israeli representative smiled and said, "And now that we have made that clear, I will begin my speech...."

The Oslo accord is null and void! - A scathing indictment of the world nations at large‏! r11 - YJ Draiman

The Oslo accord is null and void! - A scathing indictment of the world nations at large‏! r11

The Arab-Palestinians Charter explicitly states that they want the State of Israel for themselves and the Jewish people destroyed.

The Arab-Palestinians actions to date has proven that they do not want peace. Why is the liberal left and many of the world nations are fantasizing and deluding themselves that the Arabs want peace.
People of the world wake up and realize what is their ultimate mission, eliminate the unbelievers. The Arabs promote and indoctrinate the children to commit terror and violence.

The Arabs never intended to abide by the Accord, or any other agreements with Israel for that matter. It was only a means to take control of territory and eventually take over all of Israel and expel and kill the Jews again, and they do not hide their intentions.

No Democratic country in the world would tolerate the terror violence and mayhem being committed in Israel by the Arabs. Any country that does not take extreme actions to stop this terror and violence is shirking its responsibility and obligation to its citizens and should be replaced.

Just like Abbas statement this week. It is time for formally announcing that the Oslo Accord is null and void and institute a population exchange. Moving the Arabs to Jordan and or the 120,000 sq. km. the Arab countries confiscated from the terrorized and expelled million Jewish families. Thus, take back complete control of Judea and Samaria and everything west of the Jordan River as decreed by post WWI international law and treaties, including the January 1919 Faisal Weizmann Agreement.

If the world at large does not wake up now they will be next. It already has started, take off the blinders, open you eyes and look around. The current refugee problem from Syria and others are flooding Europe and changing the nature and face of Europe and others.

They are taking over Europe without a battle.
No entity in the world will force a solution on Israel.
They forced or were complicit to the Final solution in WWII with the Holocaust and the extermination of over 6 million Jewish people, men women and children.
Where were the worlds nations outcry, threats and objection when millions of Jewish people were being exterminated, men women and children? They were silent.

The Arab world received over 5 million square miles of territory after WWI and they begrudge the 75,000 sq. miles Israel was suppose to get and took 78% of it for Jordan and now they want more, until there is no Israel at all.
Where was the world nations when the Arab countries persecuted, terrorized and expelled over a million Jewish families and their children from their countries many who lived there for over 2,400 years, the Arabs confiscated their assets, business, homes and land 6 times the size of Israel (120,440 sq. km. or 75,000 sq. miles), valued in the trillions of dollars? Most of the expelled Jewish families settled in Israel and now comprise over half the population.
Where is the world nations today? Why do they ignore when thousands are slaughtered by Muslims throughout the world. The Muslims have killed over a half a billion people since the Muslim religion was initiated.

Today and since 1948. Israel is being threatened with annihilation and when Israel defends itself from destruction, terror, suicide bombers, thousands of missiles, violence, etc, by the Arabs, every country has something to say, threaten Israel and meddle in its internal business.

This is the time when nations of the world must mind their own business and stay out of Israel’s internal affairs. Only then there will be a possibility of peace.

NEVER AGAIN!!!

YJ Draiman

Arabs-Muslims declare ‘Death to the Jews’ in their Facebook profiles - YJ Draiman

Arabs-Muslims declare ‘Death to the Jews’ in their Facebook profiles

This is not anti-Zionism. This is extreme racist anti-Semitism. If you replace “Death to the Jews” with “Death to the Buddhists”, or “Death to the Catholics”, or "Death to the Pagan worshipers" or “Death to the Kenyans or the Japanese”, what would these words mean other than menacing hate based in evil? This is a macabre, pure Nazi statement that these people gladly promote with the moronic mob mentality that they embrace. This brings only promises of chaos and fear and not respect, or a possible evolution toward a solution of coexistence.

If the world destroys the Jews, which will never happen with the help of the almighty, the impact of losing the Jewish contributions to the world will be significant and catastrophic.

The advances made in medicine, science, technology, law, philosophy and every corner of higher learning and progressive humanity as a direct result of Jewish contributions are etched in history and cannot be denied.

Worldwide advances and progress will always be a reminder of what the Jews did and accomplished, unlike any other group in history. Non-Jews always have and continue to wonder how we did all that advancement.

We the Jews being such a minute percentage of world population have been successful, and will continue so because we do not allow words, feelings or attitudes of hate in our children. Our children, and the generations to follow always come first. We raise our children with love of our traditions and cultures, and respect toward others who may differ.  Our women mold the souls of our children and educate them in love and compassion, not hatred.

Another factor of our success is we promote education as essential in the upbringing of our children.  In addition, we lift ourselves up by hard work, dedication and innovation, not by taking others down.

The Jewish people have survived and prospered even after thousands of years of unwarranted hate and persecutions throughout history. The world at large over the centuries has forced the Jewish people time and time again to liberate themselves from constant discrimination, hate and persecution in the Diaspora.  We rose and responded by bringing about the rebirth of modern Israel in its ancestral land in order to survive, strive, thrive and control our own future and destiny.

Remember, when the Jews and minorities were persecuted, killed and violated in the Arab and Islamic lands, (over a million Jewish families and their children expelled and all their assets confiscated), those countries never recovered from the loss.

Differences in human composition and dedication are what make the Jewish people stronger. George Washington stated during his comments to the American people about appreciating how Haym Solomon, a Jew, helped in financing the American revolution, that the cultural differences are what make a nation stronger.Israel is the thriving America of Jews worldwide.

After 2500 years of persecution in the Diaspora, Israel through hard work, determination to succeed, and dedication to survive with control of its own destiny was reborn by the Jewish people against all odds. It took extreme faith, dedication, hardship and consistent toil to rebuild Israel one grain of sand at a time, inch by inch, foot by foot, and mile by mile.  The Jews of Israel never quit until all the swamps were gone and the land flourished; until the infrastructure and housing was built.  Most importantly, all of these accomplishments by the Jewish people were achieved with limited resources, a hostile environment and Arab and British impediment to our freedom and independence. Nevertheless, we have succeeded in making the desert bloom and flowing with green valleys; we have turned the desert into a land of milk and honey.

Furthermore, Jewish innovations and advances in all fields keep coming on a consistent basis. We built educational institutions and research facilities that are the envy of the world. Furthermore, overcoming the harsh treatment by the nations of the world, and to ensure we, or any other people are never again led as sheep to the slaughter of the Nazi gas chamber, Israel has morphed into a world military might to rightfully defend its people.  Contrary to the efforts of many nations of the world, the State of Israel is alive and thriving! (“the nation of Israel lives”)

History has proven hate begets hate, and nations built upon a premise of hate have all failed.  If all the Jews were gone (not likely), the anti-Semitic promoters and facilitators would need to feed their hate, and would turn on each other.  History has proven as such to always be the end result of hate.

I challenge you. Try love and understanding, compassion and kindness, embrace and respect the differences, it will make living a celebration of life, it’s all very beautiful and content, furthermore, you will find the real true success and accomplishment. It will be hard to change the narrative, but go ahead, accept the challenge to heal instead of hate, to tolerate instead of intolerance,  to endure instead of abhor.
If you follow these ideals, narratives and behavior, you may finally see some success like many of the JEWS and forego your jealousy and intolerance!

This will bring about a harmonious and thriving coexistence that will benefit society and humanity for generations to come.

YJ Draiman

The Mandate for Palestine aka Greater Israel as it Pertains to Jerusalem and the Old City - YJ Draiman

The Mandate for Palestine aka Greater Israel as it Pertains to Jerusalem and the Old City

The rights granted to the Jewish people in the 1920 San Remo Conference were confirmed and adopted by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres and Lausanne.  Furthermore, said rights were adopted and incorporated by the League of Nations in implementing The Mandate for Palestine relating to the establishment of the Jewish national home, and were to be given effect in all parts and regions of the Palestine territory. No exception was made for Jerusalem and its Old City; nor were they singled out for special reference in either the Balfour Declaration, the 1920 San Remo Treaty, or the Mandate for Palestine, other than to call for the preservation of existing rights in the Holy Places. As concerns the Holy Places, including those located in the Old City, specific obligations and responsibilities were imposed on the Mandatory.

It follows that the legal rights of the claimants to sovereignty over the Old City of Jerusalem similarly derive from the decisions of the Principal Allied Powers in the 1920 San Remo conference, and from the terms of the Mandate for Palestine adopted and approved by the Council of the League of Nations. In evaluating the validity of the claims of Israel relating to the Old City, the Council decision is of great significance from the perspective of the rights and obligations that it created under international law which the UN cannot supersede or modify without the consent of the parties.

The League of Nations and the UN can only recommend a resolution. In order for a resolution to be binding it must be agreed to and executed by the parties concerned. Since the Arabs rejected outright the partition and most other resolutions, all those resolutions are void and have no standing whatsoever.

In the view of Oxford international law professor Ian Brownlie, “in many instances the rights of parties to a dispute derive from legally significant acts, or a treaty concluded very long ago”.  As a result of these “legally significant acts”, there are legal as well as historical ties between the State of Israel and the Old City of Jerusalem.  The Faisal Weitzmann agreement of January 3, 1919 stated and agreed that the Jews would have Jerusalem and that the Muslim places of worship would be protected.

The intellectual ties were further solidified by the official opening of the Hebrew University on 1 April 1925 in Jerusalem. It must be noted said opening was attended by many dignitaries, including the University’s founding father, Dr. Chaim Weizmann, Field Marshall Allenby, Lord Balfour, Professor William Rappard and Sir Herbert Samuel, and many other distinguished guests. According to Dr. Weizmann, addressing the dignitaries and some twelve thousand other attendees at this memorable event, the opening of the University in Jerusalem was “the distinctive symbol, as it is destined to be the crowning glory, of the National Home of the Jewish people which we are seeking to rebuild”. 

In addition to the legal, historical and intellectual heritage, in the words of Canadian scholar Dr. Jacques Paul Gauthier: “To attempt to solve the Jerusalem / Old City problem without taking into consideration the historical and religious facts is like trying to put together a ten thousand piece puzzle without the most strategic pieces of that puzzle”.  In his monumental work entitled "Sovereignty Over the Old City of Jerusalem: A Study of the Historical, Religious, Political and Legal Aspects of the Question of the Old City", Dr. Gauthier offers an exhaustive review of these historical/spiritual/political/legal bonds, emphasizing the “extraordinary meaning” of the Old City of Jerusalem and the temple to the Jewish people.

Why Was a Nazi Flag Flying from a Jerusalem Hotel FAST in the 1930s? - Jerusalem Pearl Hotel - Draiman

Why Was a Nazi Flag Flying from a Jerusalem Hotel FAST in the 1930s? - Jerusalem Pearl Hotel - Draiman

Why Was a Nazi Flag Flying from a Jerusalem Hotel FAST in the 1930s?

It was replaced by The Jerusalem Pearl Hotel in 1995 by the Draiman family. See picture at the bottom.

Posted: 30 Aug 2015 11:11 AM PDT

We recently published pictures from the British Library's Endangered Archives Program, including this incredible picture of Jaffa Gate of Jerusalem's Old City which we have dated to the mid-1890s. Only in 1898 was the wall near Jaffa Gate breached so that carriages could drive into the city.

Jaffa Gate and A(braham) Fast's restaurant.  (Debbas Collection, British Library)

We wanted to know more about the store on the left with the sign "A Fast. Restauranteur."  Was this a tourist establishment of Abraham Fast, who in 1907 took over a large hotel several hundred meters to the west of the building pictured above and renamed it "Hotel Fast?"

German troops marching in Jerusalem on Good Friday,  April 6, 1917. The building on the left is the Fast Hotel. (Imperial War Museum, UK)

It was a leading hotel with 100 rooms, built around a court yard with Ionic, Corinthian and Doric columns.

Hotel Fast and its kosher restaurantwas a well-known establishment in Jerusalem for decades, and was probably considered by many to be a Jewish-owned establishment because of its Jewish clientele.
Nothing could be further from the truth.  The Fasts were German Templers.

The German consulate in the Fast Hotel, 1933. (Wikimedia, Tamar Hayardeni)

They lived in Jerusalem's German Colony and were exiled by the British after World War I and during World War II because of their support for Germany.

We recently uncovered pictures of German troops marching in Jerusalem streets on Good Friday 1917. Readers were able to identify the building on the left as the Fast Hotel.

Our biggest surprise was finding this picture of the German consulate in the Hotel Fast with the German Swastika flag flying from the building. 


During World War II, the hotel was taken over by the British army command and turned into the Australian army club. 

The Hotel Fast housed Australian soldiers in World War II.  Here they are greeting the Australian Prime Minister Robert Menzies and the commander of the Australian troops in Australia,  Lt. Gen. Thomas Blamey in February 1941. The Matson Photo Service, shown on the ground floor, was run by Eric Matson, originally from the American Colony Photographic Department.   Matson left Palestine in 1946 for the United States.  His collection of photos were bequeathed to the Library of Congress where many of the pictures in this  website were found.  (Library of Congress)

The Hotel Fast building was abandoned in 1967 and torn down in 1976 to make way for the Dan Pearl Hotel- Built by the Draiman family in 1995.

1937 BRITISH PEEL COMMISSION REPORT ON GREATER ISRAEL AKA PALESTINE

1937 BRITISH PEEL COMMISSION REPORT ON GREATER ISRAEL AKA PALESTINE

The Commission was established at a time of increased violence; serious clashes between Arabs and Jews broke out in 1936 and were to last three years. The Commission was charged with determining the cause of the riots, and judging the merit of grievances on both sides.  Chaim Weizmann gave a stirring and memorable speech on behalf of the Zionist cause. The Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, refused to testify in front of the Commission. Instead, he demanded full cessation of Jewish immigration. Although the Arabs continued to boycott the Commission officially, there was a sense of urgency to respond to Weizmann's powerful speech. The former Mayor of Jerusalem Ragheb Bey al-Nashashibi, was thus sent to explain the Arab perspective through unofficial channels. 

---

 

The Peel Commission Report
Secretary of State for the Colonies
to the United Kingdom Parliament
by Command of His Britannic Majesty
Palestine Royal Commission
July 1937
Series of League of Nations Publications

VI. A. Mandates
1937. VI A. 5

Official Communique in 9/37

The Members of the Palestine Royal Commission were:


Rt. Hon. Earl Peel, G.C.S.I., G.B.E. (Chairman).
Rt. Hon. Sir Horace Rumbold, Bart., G.C.B., G.C.M.G., M.V.O. (Vice-Chairman).
Sir Laurie Hammond, K.C.S.I., C.B.E.
Sir Morris Carter, C.B.E.
Sir Harold Morris, M.B.E., K.C.
Professor Reginald Coupland, C.I.E.

Mr. J. M. Martin was Secretary.

The Commission was appointed in August, 1936, with the following terms of reference:

To ascertain the underlying causes of the disturbances which broke out in Palestine in the middle of April; to enquire into the manner in which the Mandate for Palestine is being implemented in relation to the obligations of the Mandatory towards the Arabs and the Jews respectively; and to ascertain whether, upon a proper construction of the terms of the Mandate, either the Arabs or the Jews have any legitimate grievances on account of the way in which the Mandate has been or is being implemented; and if the Commission is satisfied that any such grievances are well-founded, to make recommendation; for their removal and for the prevention of their recurrence.


The following is a summary of the Commission's Report:

Part I: The Problem

Chapter I: The Historical Background

A brief account of ancient Jewish times in Palestine, of the Arab conquest and occupation, of the dispersion of the Jews and the development of the Jewish Problem, and the growth and meaning of Zionism.

Chapter II: The War and the Mandate

In order to obtain Arab support in the War, the British Government promised the Sherif of Mecca in 1915 that, in the event of an Allied victory, the greater part of the Arab provinces of the Turkish Empire would become independent. The Arabs understood that Palestine would be included in the sphere of independence.

In order to obtain the support of World Jewry, the British Government in 1917 issued the Balfour Declaration. The Jews understood that, if the experiment of establishing a Jewish National Home succeeded and a sufficient number of Jews went to Palestine, the National Home might develop in course of time into a Jewish State.

At the end of the War, the Mandate System was accepted by the Allied and Associated Powers as the vehicle for the execution of the policy of the Balfour Declaration, and, after a period of delay, the Mandate for Palestine was approved by the League of Nations and the United States. The Mandate itself is mainly concerned with specific obligations of equal weight — positive obligations as to the establishment of the National Home, negative obligations as to safeguarding the rights of the Arabs. The Mandate also involves the general obligation, implicit in every Mandate, to fulfil the primary purpose of the Mandate System as expressed in the first paragraph of Article 22 of the Covenant.

This means that the well-being and development" of the people concerned are the first charge on the Mandatory, and implies that they will in due course be enabled to stand by themselves.

The association of the policy of the Balfour Declaration with the Mandate System implied the belief that Arab hostility to the former would presently be overcome, owing to the economic advantages which Jewish immigration was expected to bring to Palestine as a whole.

Chapter III: Palestine from 1920 to 1936

During the first years of the Civil Administration, which was set up in 1920, a beginning was made on the one hand with the provision of public services, which mainly affected the Arab majority of the population. and on the other hand with the establishment of the Jewish National Home. There were outbreaks of disorder in 1920 and 1921, but in 1925 it was thought that the prospects of ultimate harmony between the Arabs and the Jews seemed so favourable that the forces for maintaining order were substantially reduced.

These hopes proved unfounded because, although Palestine as a whole became more prosperous, the causes of the outbreaks of 1920 and 1921, namely, the demand of the Arabs for national independence and their antagonism to the National Home, remained unmodified and were indeed accentuated by the "external factors," namely, the pressure of the Jews of Europe on Palestine and the development of Arab nationalism in neighbouring countries.

These same causes brought about the outbreaks of 1929 and 1933. By 1936 the external factors had been intensified by:

(1) the sufferings of the Jews in Germany and Poland, resulting in a great increase of Jewish immigration into Palestine; and
(2) the prospect of Syria and the Lebanon soon obtaining the same independence as Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Egypt was also on the eve of independence.
Chapter IV: The Disturbances of 1936

These disturbances (which are briefly summarized) were similar in character to the four previous outbreaks, although more serious and prolonged. As in 1933, it was not only the Jews who were attacked, but the Palestine Government. A new feature was the part played by the Rulers of the neighbouring Arab States in bringing about the end of the strike.

The underlying causes of the disturbances of 1936 were:

(1) The desire of the Arabs for national independence;
(2) their hatred and fear of the establishment of the Jewish National Home.


These two causes were the same as those of all the previous outbreaks and have always been inextricably linked together. Of several subsidiary factors, the more important were:

(1) the advance of Arab nationalism outside Palestine;


(2) the increased immigration of Jews since 1933;


(3) the opportunity enjoyed by the Jews for influencing public opinion in Britain;


(4) Arab distrust in the sincerity of the British Government;


(5) Arab alarm at the continued Jewish purchase of land;


(6) the general uncertainty as to the ultimate intentions of the Mandatory Power.


Chapter V: The Present Situation

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. The National Home cannot be half-national.

Crown Colony government is not suitable for such a highly educated, democratic community as the National Home and fosters an unhealthy irresponsibility.

The National Home is bent on forcing the pace of its development, not only because of the desire of the Jews to escape from Europe, but because of anxiety as to the future in Palestine.

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.

Such economic advantage, however, as the Arabs have gained from Jewish immigration will decrease if the political breach between the races continues to widen.

Arab nationalism is as intense a force as Jewish. The Arab leaders' demand for national self-government and the shutting down of the Jewish National Home has remained unchanged since 1929. Like Jewish nationalism, Arab nationalism is stimulated by the educational system and by the growth of the Youth Movement. It has also been greatly encouraged by the recent Anglo-Egyptian and Franco-Syrian Treaties.

The gulf between the races is thus already wide and will continue to widen if the present Mandate is maintained.

The position of the Palestine Government between the two antagonistic communities is unenviable. There are two rival bodies — the Arab Higher Committee allied with the Supreme Moslem Council on the one hand, and the Jewish Agency allied with the Va'ad Leumi on the other — who make a stronger appeal to the natural loyalty of the Arab and the Jews than does the Government of Palestine. The sincere attempts of the Government to treat the two races impartially have not improved the relations between them. Nor has the policy of conciliating Arab opposition been successful. The events of last year proved that conciliation is useless.

The evidence submitted by the Arab and Jewish leaders respectively was directly conflicting and gave no hope of compromise.

The only solution of tile problem put forward by the Arab Higher Committee was the immediate establishment of all independent Arab Government, which would deal with the 400,000 Jews now in Palestine as it thought fit. To that it is replied that belief in British good faith would not be strengthened anywhere in the world if the National Home were now surrendered to Arab rule.

The Jewish Agency and the Va'ad Leumi asserted that the problem would be solved if the Mandate were firmly applied in full accordance with Jewish claims: thus there should be no new restriction on immigration nor anything to prevent the Jewish population becoming in course of time a majority in Palestine. To that it is replied that such a policy could only be maintained by force and that neither British public opinion nor that of World Jewry is likely to commit itself to the recurrent use of force unless it is convinced that there is no other means by which justice can be done.

Part II: the Operation of the Mandate

The Commission exhaustively considered what might be done in one field after another in execution of the Mandate to improve the prospects of peace. The results of this enquiry are embodied in Part II of the Report. The problems confronting the various branches of tile Mandatory Administration are described, and the grievances of the Arabs and Jews under each head discussed. The principal findings of the Commission are as follows:

Chapter VI: Administration

The Palestinian officers in the Government Service work well in normal times, but in times of trouble they are unreliable. There should be no hesitation in dispensing with the services of those whose loyalty or impartiality is uncertain.

As regards British officers, the cadre is too small to admit of a Civil Service for Palestine alone and the Administration must continue to draw on the Colonial Service, but the ordinary period of service in Palestine should be not less than seven years. Officers should be carefully selected and given a preliminary course of instruction.

The Commission recognise the difficulties of the British Administration, driven from the first to work at high pressure with no opportunity for calm reflection. There is over-centralization and insufficient liaison between Headquarters Departments and the District Administration.

The grievances and claims of the Arabs and Jews as regards the Courts cannot be reconciled and reflect the racial antagonism pervading the whole Administration. The difficulty of providing a judicial system suitable to the needs of the mixed peoples of Palestine is enhanced by the existence of three official languages, three weekly days of rest, three sets of official holidays and three systems of law. As regards Jewish suspicions as to the conduct of criminal prosecutions, the Commission point to the difficulties of the Legal Department in a land where perjury is common and evidence in many cases, particularly in times of crisis, unobtainable, and conclude that the animosity between the two races, particularly in times of crisis, has shown its influence to the detriment of the work of a British Senior Government Department. The appointment of a British Senior Government Advocate is recommended.

The Jaffa-Haifa road should be completed as speedily as possible.

Further expert enquiry is necessary before deciding whether a second deep-water port is required. It would be best to build such a port, if at all, at the junction of Jaffa and Tel Aviv, equally accessible from each.
There is no branch of the Administration with which the Jewish Agency does not concern itself but the Agency is not open to criticism on this ground. Article 4 of the Mandate entitles it to advise and co-operate with the Government in almost anything that may affect the interests of the Jewish population. It constitutes a kind of parallel government existing side by side with the Mandatory Government and its privileged position intensifies Arab antagonism.

The Arab Higher Committee was to a large extent responsible for maintaining and protecting the strike last year. The Mufti of Jerusalem as President must bear his due share of responsibility. It is unfortunate that since 1929 no action has been practicable to regulate the question of elections for the Supreme Moslem Council and the position of its President. The functions which the Mufti has collected in his person and his use of them have led to the development of an Arab imperium in imperio. He may be described as the head of a third parallel government. The Commission discuss a proposal for an enlarged Arab Agency, consisting of representatives of neighbouring Arab countries as well as of the Arabs in Palestine, to balance the Jewish Agency. If the present Mandate system continues some such scheme will have to be considered.

Chapter VII: Public Security

Although expenditure on public security rose from £265,000 in 1923 to over £862,000 in 1935-36 (and £2,230,000 in 1936-37, the year of the disturbance) it is evident that the elementary duty of providing public security has not been discharged. Should disorders break out again of such a nature as to require the intervention of the Military, there should be no hesitation in enforcing martial law throughout the country under undivided military control. In such an event disarmament should be enforced and an effective frontier organisation established for stopping smuggling, illegal immigration and gun running. In the absence of disarmament the supernumerary police for the defence of Jewish Settlements should be continued as a disciplined force.

The collection of intelligence was unsatisfactory during the strike. The majority of Palestinian officers in the Criminal investigation Department are thoroughly devoted and loyal, but the junior ranks, like the majority of the District police, though useful in times of peace, are unreliable in time of trouble. It would be highly dangerous to expose the Arab police of Palestine to another strain of the same kind as that which they endured last summer.

In "mixed" areas British District Officers should be appointed.

Central and local police reserves are necessary. A large mobile mounted force is also essential, whether in the form of a Gendarmerie or by increasing the British Mounted Police.

After the 1929 disturbances, though 27 capital sentences were confirmed, only three murderers suffered the extreme penalty. In 1936 there were 260 reported cases of murder, 67 convictions and no death sentences. The prompt and adequate punishment of crime is a vital factor in the maintenance of law and order.

Collective fines totalling over £60,000 were imposed during the years 1929-36: only £18,000 has been collected up to date. If collective fines are to have a deterrent effect they should be limited to a sum that can be realized, and a body of punitive police should be quartered on the town or village until the fine has been paid.

The penalties provided by the Press ordinance and the action taken under it are insufficient. An Ordinance should be adopted providing for a cash deposit which can be confiscated and for imprisonment as well as payment of a fine; also, in case of a repetition of the offence, for forfeiture of the press.

Police barracks and married quarters are urgently necessary in certain towns.

The entire cost of the measures proposed could not be met from the revenues of Palestine. Grants-in-aid from His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom would be required on a generous scale. The immediate effect of these measures would be to wider, the gulf that separates the Arab from the Jew, with repercussions spreading far beyond the borders of Palestine.

Chapter VIII: Financial and Fiscal Questions

Until recent years the public finances allowed no great scope for development in the social services. The accumulation of a considerable surplus was a feature of the four years beginning 1932, and there were grounds for a conservative attitude towards this development. The conclusion that the existence of a large surplus reflects undue parsimony is not borne out by close analysis, since the entire surplus is found to be so heavily mortgaged that it is little more than a reasonable provision for existing commitments.

If the inward flow of capital, which is the most singular feature of the economy of Palestine, were to be arrested, there is no reason why the removal of exceptional advantages should result in penury, though there might be some reduction in the standard of living until the new economy was established. In the event of a prolonged period of economic stagnation the danger of an exodus of capital cannot be altogether excluded.

It is not possible in the absence of adequate statistics to measure the truth of the Arab complaint that industrial protection chiefly benefits the Jews and that its burdens are chiefly borne by the Arabs. It is hoped that the new Department of Statistics may soon enquire into the incidence of taxation and that new duties will be considered in relation to the whole burden of taxation and not merely as affecting the particular industry.

There is no question as to the need of increasing the export trade and finding markets for the ever increasing citrus output. After examining various possible expedients for overcoming the difficulties which result from the non-discrimination in tariff policy required by Article 18 of the Mandate, the Commission conclude that the provisions of Article 18 are out of date. Without an amendment of that Article Palestine must continue to suffer from the restrictions which hamper international trade, and negotiations should be opened without delay to put the trade of Palestine on a fairer basis.

Chapter IX: The Land

A summary of land legislation enacted during the Civil Administration shows the efforts made to fulfil the Mandatory obligation in this matter. The Commission point to serious difficulties in connection with the legislation proposed by the Palestine Government for the protection of small owners. The Palestine Order in Council and, if necessary, the Mandate should be amended to permit of legislation empowering the High Commissioner to prohibit the transfer of land in any stated area to Jews, so that the obligation to safeguard the right and position of the Arabs may be carried out. Until survey and settlement are complete, the Commission would welcome the prohibition of the sale of isolated and comparatively small plots of land to Jews. They would prefer larger schemes for the rearrangement of proprietorship under Government supervision. They favour the proposal for the creation of special Public Utility Companies to undertake such development schemes subject to certain conditions.

An expert Committee should be appointed to draw up a Land Code.

Recommendations are made with a view to the expediting of settlement (the need for which is paramount) and to the improvement of settlement procedure.

The present system of Land Courts is contributory to delay. Until survey and settlement are complete there should be two or three Land Courts separate from the District Courts and each under a single British Judge.

Up till now the Arab cultivator has benefited on the whole both from the work of the British Administration and the presence of Jews in the country, but the greatest care must now be exercised to see that in the event of further sales of land by Arabs to Jews the rights of any Arab tenants or cultivators are preserved. Thus, alienation of land should only be allowed where it is possible to replace extensive by intensive cultivation. In the hill districts there can be no expectation of finding accommodation for any large increase in the rural population. At present, and for many years to come, the Mandatory Power should not attempt to facilitate the close settlement of the Jews in the hill districts generally.

The shortage of land is due less to purchase by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population. 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.

Legislation vesting surface water in the High Commissioner is essential. An increase in staff and equipment for exploratory investigations with a view to increasing irrigation is recommended. The scheme for the development of the Huleh district is commended.

The Commission fully realize the desirability of afforestation on a large scale of a long term forest policy, but, having regard to their conclusion as to the scarcity of land in the hills for the agricultural population, they cannot recommend a policy involving expropriation of cultivators on a large scale until other cultivable land or suitable employment on the land can be found for them. In the aggregate, however, a large amount of land is fit for afforestation but not for cultivation, and the Commission endorse a policy of afforestation of steep hillsides to prevent erosion the prevention of grazing on land fit for afforestation, and, where practicable, the establishment of village forests for the benefit of neighbouring cultivators.

Chapter X: Immigration

The problem of immigration has been aggravated by three factors: (1) the drastic restrictions imposed on immigration in the United States, (2) the advent of the National Socialist Government in Germany, and (3) the increasing economic pressure on the Jews in Poland.

The continuous impact of a highly intelligent and enterprising race backed by large financial resources on a comparatively poor, indigenous community, on a different cultural level, may produce in time serious reactions. The principle of economic absorptive capacity, meaning that considerations of economic capacity and these alone should determine immigration, is at present inadequate and ignores factors in the situation which wise statesmanship cannot disregard. Political, social and psychological factors should be taken into account. His Majesty's Government should lay down a political high level of Jewish immigration. This high level should be fixed for the next five years at 12,000 per annum. The High Commissioner should be given discretion to admit immigrants up to this maximum figure, but subject always to the economic absorptive capacity of the country.

Among other alterations in the immigration regulations the Commission recommend that the Administration should have direct control over the immigrants coming in under Category A(i) (persons with £1,000 capital), and any person who desires to enter Palestine under this category should convince the Immigration authority not only that he is in possession of £1,000, but also that there is room in Palestine for additional members in the profession, trade or business which he proposes to pursue.

The definition of dependency should be revised so as to fall under two heads, (1) near relatives who, dependency being presumed, would have a right to come in, and (2) other relatives, in respect of whom the Immigration authority would have to be satisfied that they can be maintained by the immigrant or permanent resident concerned, as long as they remain dependent for maintenance.

The final allocation of immigration certificates as determined by the Jewish Agency should be submitted by the High Commissioner for approval.

Greater use should be made of the machinery of the District Administration in making enquiries in connection with the preparation of the half-yearly Labour Schedules. The housing situation is an economic consideration to which greater regard should be given when considering absorptive capacity.

In so far as immigration has been the major factor in bringing the Jewish National Home to its present stage of development, the Mandatory has fully implemented this obligation to facilitate the establishment of a National Home for the Jewish people in Palestine, as in evidenced by the existence of a Jewish population of 400,000 persons. But this does not mean that the National Rome should be crystallized at its present size. The Commission cannot accept the view that the Mandatory, facilitated the establishment of a National Home, would be justified in shutting its doors. Its economic life depends to a large extent on further immigration and a large amount of capital has been invested in it on the assumption that immigration would continue.

Restrictions on Jewish immigration will not solve the Palestine problem. The National Home seems already too big to the Arabs and, whatever its size, it bars the to their attainment of national independence.

Chapter XI: Trans-Jordan

The articles of the Mandate concerning the 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. Arab antagonism to Jewish immigration is at least as bitter in Trans-Jordan as it is in Palestine. The Government of Trans-Jordan would refuse to encourage Jewish immigration in the teeth of popular resistance.

Chapter XII: Health

The Jewish grievances are summed up as complaints that not enough money has been spent, by the Mandatory Government to assist the medical services established by the Jews from their own resources. What is given to one service must be taken from another, and it is not always remembered that Palestine, despite the economic development of the National Home is still a relatively poor country. The whole question illustrates the difficulty of providing services in one State for two distinct communities with two very different standards of living.

Chapter XIII: Public Works and Services

If it be assumed that the distribution of posts as between the two races should be proportional to the size of their respective populations, the Government have fairly maintained this proportion in the Civil Service generally, although the rapid expansion of the Jewish community has made this extremely difficult.

In Palestine, where there are different rates of pay for Arab and Jewish unskilled labourers, and also frequent fluctuations in wage rates, it is practically impossible to maintain employment on public works on any fixed proportion between the races.

The Commission make no recommendation with regard to the employment of Jews and non-Jews in Government Departments and on public works and services. They refer to the difficulties created by the antagonism between the two races, the differences in their standard of living and rates of wages and the additional complication of three different Holy Days, and state that they are satisfied that the Government have taken a broad view in dealing with the situation and that there is no foundation for the suggestion that the Government attitude towards the employment of Jews is unsympathetic.

Chapter XIV: The Christians

The religious stake of the Christians in the Holy Places is just as great as that of the Jews or Moslems. The Christians of the world cannot be indifferent to the justice and well-being of their co-religionists in the Holy Land.

A memorandum setting out the grievances of the Arab Orthodox Community and complaining of the laissez-faire attitude of the Government was received too late for examination in detail, but it is pointed out that the Financial Commission appointed under the Orthodox Patriarchate Ordinance of 1928 has carried out an effective reform of the Patriarchate's finances and that the reorganization of the internal affairs of the Patriarchate, including the establishment of a Mixed Council, has been discussed between the Government, the Patriarchate and the Laity and is at present under consideration by the Government.

The Commission refer to the question of Sunday work by Christian officials resulting from the strict observance of the Jewish Sabbath, and are disposed to agree with the view that the existing state of affairs throws too much work on Christians officials and impairs the spiritual influence of the Christian Church.

In political matters the Christian Arabs have thrown in their lot with their Moslem brethren.

Chapter XV: Nationality Law and Acquisition of Palestinian Citizenship

As regards the grievances of the Arabs (stated to number about 40,000) who left Palestine before the War intending eventually to return but have been unable to obtain Palestinian citizenship, the Commission suggest that at least those who are able to establish all an unbroken personal connection with Palestine and who are prepared to give a definite formal assurance of their intention to return, should be admitted to Palestinian citizenship.

As regards Jews, the existing legislation implements the obligation of the Mandate on this subject. The Jews have not availed themselves readily of the opportunity afforded them of becoming Palestinian citizens, and this is accounted for by the fact that their chief interest is in the Jewish Community itself. Allegiance to Palestine and to the Government are minor considerations to many of them.

The Commission do not agree with those who criticise the restriction of the municipal franchise to Palestinian citizens. It is most desirable that all persons who intend to reside permanently in the country should become Palestinian citizens, and this qualification for voting is a direct inducement, to them to do so.

Chapter XVI: Education

It seems unfortunate that the Administration has been unable to do more for education. It is not only the intrinsic value of education that should be considered. Any efforts to raise the material standards of life among the fellaheen can only be successful if they have received sufficient mental training to profit from technical instruction. Considering, the inadequacy of the existing provision for Arab education, the Administration should regard its claims on the revenue as second in importance only to those of public security.

Worse than the insufficiency of Arab schools, however is the nationalist character of the education provided in the schools of both communities and for that the Commission can see no remedy at all. The ideal system of education would be a single bi-national system for both races. But that is virtually impossible under the Mandate, which prescribes the right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language." The existing Arab and Jewish school systems are definitely widening and will continue to widen the gulf between the two races.

Wherever practicable, e.g. in new technical or trade schools, mixed education should be promoted.

As regards the Jews' claim for a larger grant for their system of education, the Commission consider that, until much more has been spent on the development of Arab education, so as to place it on a level with that of the Jews, it is unjustifiable to increase the grant to the latter, however desirable it might be in other circumstances. The extent to which the Jews have taxed themselves for education is one of the best features of the National Home; and such "self-help" deserves all support; but it should not be given by altering the present proportion between the grant to the Jews and the amount spent on the Arabs; it should result from an increase in the total expenditure on education.

The contrast between the Arab and Jewish systems of education is most striking at the top. The Jews have a university of high quality. The Arabs have none and the young intelligenzia of the country are unable to complete their education without the cost and inconvenience of going abroad. In any further discussion of the project of a British University in the Near East the possibility should be carefully considered of locating it in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem or Haifa.

Chapter XVII: Local Government

The present system of rural self-government (through local Councils) falls short (1) in a lack of flexibility, (2) in undue centralization. An attempt should be made to strengthen those few local councils which still exist in the Arab rural areas, but the Commission do not favour an attempt at present to revivify councils which have broken down or to create new ones unless there is a genuine demand for them. There can be little really effective extension of village self-government until the provision of primary education has had more time to take effect.

The deficiencies of the present system of municipal government are (1) a lack of initiative on the part of the more backward municipalities, and (2) the limitations set to initiative on the part of the more progressive municipalities by an Ordinance which subjects them all to the same measure of Government control and centralized administration. The limitation of power and responsibility largely accounts for the lack of interest shown by the townspeople in most municipal councils.

Tel Aviv has unique problems of its own caused by its phenomenal growth during the last five years. The objectives which the people of Tel Aviv have set before them in the way of social services are in themselves admirable, and the ratepayers have shown a commendable readiness to bear high rates for their realization. The town has been faced with, and to a considerable extent surmounted, exceptional difficulties without seriously impairing its financial position.

The more important local councils and all the municipalities should be reclassified by means of a new Ordinance into groups according to their respective size and importance. The degree of power and independence could then be varied to suit each class. For the first class of municipality the powers provided under the existing Ordinance are inadequate and should be extended.

The services of an expert authority on local government should be obtained to assist in drafting the new Ordinance and in improving and co-ordinating the relations between Government and the municipalities, particularly in the larger towns, with special reference to the need of removing the causes of the present delay in approving municipal budgets.

The need of Tel Aviv for a substantial loan should be promptly and sympathetically reconsidered.

The normal constitutional relationship between the central and local authorities is impossible in Palestine.

Chapter XVIII: Self-governing Institutions

Such hopes as may have been entertained in 1922 of any quick advance towards self-government have become less tenable. The bar to it - Arab antagonism to the National Home - so far from weakening, has grown stronger.

The Jewish leaders might acquiesce in the establishment of a Legislative Council on the basis of parity, but the Commission are convinced that parity is not a practicable solution of the problem. It is difficult to believe that so artificial a device would operate effectively or last long, and in any case the Arab leaders would not accept it.

The Commission do not recommend that any attempt be made to revive the proposal of a Legislative Council, but since it is desirable that the Government should have some regular and effective means of sounding public opinion on its policy, the Commission would welcome an enlargement of the Advisory Council by the addition of Unofficial Members, who might be in a majority and might be elected, who could make representations by way of resolution, but who would not be empowered to pass or reject the budget or other legislative measures. Again, the Arabs are unlikely to accept such a proposal.

The Arabs of Palestine, it has been admitted, are as fit to govern themselves as the Arabs of Iraq or Syria. The Jews of Palestine are as fit to govern themselves as any organized and educated community in Europe. Yet, associated as they are under the Mandate, self-government is impracticable for both peoples. The Mandate cannot be fully implemented nor can it honourably terminate in the independence of an undivided Palestine unless the conflict between Arab and Jew can be composed.

Chapter XIX: Conclusion and Recommendations

The Commission recapitulate the conclusions set out in this part of the Report, and summarize the Arab and Jewish grievances and their own recommendations for the removal of such as are legitimate. They add, however, that these are not the recommendations which their terms of reference require. They will not, that is to say, remove the grievances nor prevent their recurrence. They are the best palliatives the Commission can devise for the disease from which Palestine is suffering, but they are only palliatives. They cannot cure the trouble. The disease is so deep-rooted that in the Commissioners' firm conviction the only hope of a cure lies in a surgical operation.

Part III: The Possibility of a Lasting Settlement

Chapter XX: The Force of Circumstances

The problem of Palestine is briefly restated.

Under the stress of the World War the British Government made promises to Arabs and Jews in order to obtain their support. On the strength of those promises both parties formed certain expectations.

The application to Palestine of the Mandate System in general and of the specific Mandate in particular implies the belief that the obligations thus undertaken towards the Arabs and the Jews respectively would prove in course of time to be mutually compatible owing to the conciliatory effect on the Palestinian Arabs of the material prosperity which Jewish immigration would bring in Palestine as a whole. That belief has not been justified, and there seems to be no hope of its being justified in the future.

But the British people cannot on that account repudiate their obligations, and, apart from obligations, the existing circumstances in Palestine would still require the most strenuous efforts on the part of the Government which is responsible for the welfare of the country.

The existing circumstances are summarized as follows.

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.

The conflict has grown steadily more bitter since 1920 and the process will continue. Conditions inside Palestine especially the systems of education, are strengthening the national sentiment of the two peoples. The bigger and more prosperous they grow the greater will be their political ambitions, and the conflict is aggravated by the uncertainty of the future. Who in the end will govern Palestine?" it is asked. Meanwhile, the external factors will continue to operate with increasing force. On the one hand in less than three years' time Syria and the Lebanon will attain their national sovereignty, and the claim of the Palestinian Arabs to share in the freedom of all Asiatic Arabia will thus be fortified. On the other hand the hardships and anxieties of the Jews in Europe are not likely to grow less and the appeal to the good faith and humanity of the British people will lose none of its force.

Meanwhile, the Government of Palestine, which is at present an unsuitable form for governing educated Arabs and democratic Jews, cannot develop into a system of self-government as it has elsewhere, because there is no such system which could ensure justice both to the Arabs and to the Jews. Government therefore remains unrepresentative and unable to dispel the conflicting grievances of the two dissatisfied and irresponsible communities it governs.

In these circumstances peace can only be maintained in Palestine under the Mandate by repression. This means the maintenance of security services at so high a cost that the services directed to "the well-being and development" of the population cannot be expanded and may even have to be curtailed. The moral objections to repression are self-evident. Nor need the undesirable reactions of it on opinion outside Palestine be emphasized. Moreover, repression will not solve the problem. It will exacerbate the quarrel. It will not help towards the establishment of a single self-governing Palestine. It is not easy to pursue the dark path of repression without seeing daylight at the end of it.

The British people will not flinch from the task of continuing to govern Palestine under the Mandate if they are in honour bound to do so, but they would be justified in asking if there is no other way in which their duty can be done.

Nor would Britain wish to repudiate her obligations. The trouble is that they have proved irreconcilable, and this conflict is the more unfortunate because each of the obligations taken separately accords with British sentiment and British interest. The development of self-government in the Arab world on the one hand is in accordance with British principles, and British public opinion is wholly sympathetic with Arab aspirations towards a new age of unity and prosperity in the Arab world. British interest similarly has always been bound up with the peace of the Middle East and British statesmanship can show an almost unbroken record of friendship with the Arabs. There is a strong British tradition, on the other hand, of friendship with the Jewish people, and it is in the British interest to retain as far as may be the confidence of the Jewish people.

The continuance of the present system means the gradual alienation of two peoples who are traditionally the friends of Britain.

The problem cannot be solved by giving either the Arabs or the Jews all they want. The answer to the question which of them in the end will govern Palestine must be Neither. No fair-minded statesman can think it right either that 400,000 Jews, whose entry into Palestine has been facilitated by he British Government and approved by the League of Nations, should be handed over to Arab rule, or that, if the Jews should become a majority, a million Arabs should be handed over to their rule. But while neither race can fairly rule all Palestine, each race might justly rule part of it.

The idea of Partition has doubtless been thought of before as a solution of the problem, but it has probably been discarded as being impracticable. The difficulties are certainly very great, but when they are closely examined they do not seem so insuperable as the difficulties inherent in the continuance of the Mandate or in any other alternative arrangement. Partition offers a chance of ultimate peace. No other plan does.

Chapter XXI: Cantonisation

The political division of Palestine could be effected in a less thorough manner than by Partition. It could be divided like Federal States into provinces and cantons, which would be self-governing in such matters as immigration and land sales as well as social services. The Mandatory Government would remain as a central or federal government controlling such matters as foreign relations, defence, customs and the like.

Cantonisation is attractive at first sight because it seems to solve the three major problems of land, immigration and self-government, but there are obvious weaknesses in it. First, the working of federal systems depends on sufficient community of interest or tradition to maintain harmony between the Central Government and the cantons. In Palestine both Arabs and Jews would regard the Central Government as an alien and interfering body. Secondly, the financial relations between the Central Government and the cantons would revive the existing quarrel between Arabs and Jews as to the distribution of a surplus of federal revenue or as to the contributions of the cantons towards a federal deficit. Unrestricted Jewish immigration into the Jewish canton might lead to a demand for the expansion of federal services at the expense of the Arab canton. Thirdly, the costly task of maintaining law and order would still rest mainly on the Central Government. Fourthly, Cantonisation like Partition cannot avoid leaving a minority of each race in the area controlled by the other. The solution of this problem requires such bold measures as can only be contemplated if there is a prospect of final peace. Partition opens up such a prospect. Cantonisation does not. Lastly, Cantonisation does not settle the question of national self-government. Neither the Arabs nor the Jews would feel their political aspirations were satisfied with purely cantonal self-government.

Cantonisation, in sum, presents most, if not all, of the difficulties presented by Partition without Partition's one supreme advantage — the possibilities it offers of eventual peace.

Chapter XXII: A Plan of Partition

While the Commission would not be expected to embark oil the further protracted inquiry which would be needed for working out a scheme of Partition in full detail, it would be idle to put forward the principle of Partition and not to give it any concrete shape. Clearly it must be shown that an actual plan can be devised which meets the main requirements of the case.

1. A Treaty System

The Mandate for Palestine should terminate and be replaced by a Treaty System in accordance with the precedent set in Iraq and Syria.

A new Mandate for the Holy Places should be instituted to fulfil the purposes defined in Section 2 below.

Treaties of alliance should be negotiated by the Mandatory with the Government of Trans-Jordan and representatives of the Arabs of Palestine on the one hand and with the Zionist Organisation on the other. These Treaties would declare that, within as short a period as may be convenient, two sovereign independent States would be established - the one an Arab State consisting of Trans-Jordan united with that part of Palestine which lies to the cast and south of a frontier such as we suggest in Section 3 below; the other a Jewish State consisting of that part of Palestine which lies to the north and west of that frontier.

The Mandatory would undertake to support any requests for admission to the League of Nations which the Governments of the Arab and the Jewish States might make.

The Treaties would include strict guarantees for the protection of minorities in each State, and the financial and other provisions to which reference will be made in subsequent Sections.

Military conventions would be attached to the Treaties, dealing with the maintenance of naval, military and air forces, the upkeep and use of ports, roads and railways, the security of the oil pipe line and so forth.

2. The Holy Places

The Partition of Palestine is subject to the overriding necessity of keeping the sanctity of Jerusalem and Bethlehem inviolate and of ensuring free and safe access to them for all the world. That, in the fullest sense of the mandatory phrase, is "a sacred trust of civilization" — a trust on behalf not merely of the peoples of Palestine but of multitudes in other lands to whom those places, one or both, are Holy Places.

A new Mandate, therefore, should be framed with the execution of this trust as its primary purpose. An enclave should be demarcated extending from a point north of Jerusalem to a point south of Bethlehem, and access to the sea should be provided by a corridor extending to the north of the main road and to the south of the railway, including the towns Lydda and Ramle, and terminating at Jaffa.

The protection of the Holy Places is a permanent trust, unique in its character and purpose, and not contemplated by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. In order to avoid misunderstanding, it might frankly be stated that this trust will only terminate if and when the League of Nations and the United States desire it to do so, and that, while it would be the trustee's duty to promote the well-being and development of the local population concerned, it is not intended that in course of time they should stand by themselves as a wholly self-governing community.

Guarantees as to the rights of the Holy Places and free access thereto (as provided in Article 13 of the existing Mandate), as to transit across the mandated area, and as to non-discrimination in fiscal, economic and other matters should be maintained in accordance with the principles of the Mandate System. But the policy of the Balfour Declaration would not apply; and no question would arise of balancing Arab against Jewish claims or vice versa. All the inhabitants of the territory would stand on an equal footing. The only official language" would be that of the Mandatory Administration. Good and just government without regard for sectional interests would be its basic principle.

It would accord with Christian sentiment in the world at large if Nazareth and the Sea of Galilee (Lake Tiberias) were also covered by this Mandate. The Mandatory should be entrusted with the administration of Nazareth and with full powers to safeguard the sanctity of the waters and shores of Lake Tiberias.

The Mandatory should similarly be charged with the protection of religious endowments and of such buildings, monuments and places in the Arab and Jewish States as are sacred to the Jews and the Arabs respectively.

For the upkeep of the Mandatory Government, a certain revenue should be obtainable, especially from the large and growing urban population in its charge, both by way of customs duties and by direct taxation; but it might prove insufficient for the normal cost of the administration. In that event, it is suggested that, in all the circumstances, Parliament would be willing to vote the money needed to make good the deficit.

3. The Frontier

The natural principle for the Partition of Palestine is to separate land and settled from the areas in which the Jews have acquired land and settled from those which are who are wholly or mainly occupied by Arabs. This offers a fair and practicable basis for Partition, provided that in accordance with the spirit of British obligations, (1) a reasonable allowance is made within the boundaries of the Jewish State for the growth of population and colonization, and (2) reasonable compensation is given to the Arab State for the loss of land and revenue.

Any proposal for Partition would be futile if it gave no indication, however rough, as to how the most vital question in the whole matter might be determined, i.e., the frontier. As a solution of the problem, which seems both practicable and just, a rough line is proposed below. A Frontier Commission should be appointed to demarcate the precise frontier.

Starting from Ras an Naqura, it follows the existing northern and eastern frontier of Palestine to Lake Tiberias and crosses the Lake to the outflow of the River Jordan, whence it continues down the river to a point a little north of Beisan. It then cuts across the Beisan Plain and runs along the southern edge of the Valley of Jezreel and across the Plain of Esdraelon to a point near Megiddo, whence it crosses the Carmel ridge in the neighbourhood of the Megiddo road. Having thus reached the Maritime Plain, the line runs southwards down its eastern edge, curving west to avoid Tulkarm, until it reaches the Jerusalem-Jaffa corridor near Lydda. South of the Corridor it continues down the edge of the Plain to a point about 10 miles south of Rehovot, when it turns west to the sea.

The observations and recommendations are made with regard to the proposed frontier and to questions arising from it:


(i) No frontier can be drawn which separates all Arabs and Arab-owned land from all Jews and Jewish-owned land.

(ii) The Jews have purchased substantial blocks of land in the Gaza Plain and near Beersheba and obtained options for the purchase of other blocks in this area. The proposed frontier would prevent the utilization of those lands for the southward expansion of the Jewish National Home. On the other hand, the Jewish lands in Galilee, and in particular the Huleh basin (which offers a notable opportunity for development and colonization), would be in the Jewish Area.

(iii) The proposed frontier necessitates the inclusion in the Jewish Area of the Galilee highlands between Safad and the Plain of Acre. This is the part of Palestine in which the Jews have retained a foothold almost if not entirely without a break from the beginning of the Diaspora to the present day, and the sentiment of all Jewry is deeply attached to the "holy cities" of Safad and Tiberias. Until quite recently, moreover the Jews in Galilee have lived on friendly terms with their Arab neighbours; and throughout the series of disturbances the fellaheen of Galilee have shown themselves less amenable to political incitement than those of Samaria and Judaea where the centres of Arab nationalism are located. At the "mixed" towns of Tiberias, Safad, Haifa, and Acre there have been varying degrees of friction since the "disturbances" of last year. It would greatly promote the successful operation of Partition in its early stages, and in particular help to ensure the execution of the Treaty guarantees for the protection of minorities, if those four towns were kept for a period under Mandatory administration.

(iv) Jaffa is an essentially Arab town and should form part of the Arab State. The question of its communication with the latter presents no difficulty, since transit through the Jaffa-Jerusalem Corridor would be open to all. The Corridor, on the other hand, requires its own access to the sea, and for this purpose a narrow belt of land should be acquired and cleared on the north and south sides of the town.

(v) While the Mediterranean would be accessible to the Arab State at Jaffa and at Gaza, in the interests of Arab trade and industry the Arab State should also have access for commercial purposes to Haifa, the only existing deep-water port on the coast. The Jewish Treaty should therefore provide for the free transit of goods in bond between the Arab State and Haifa.


The Arab Treaty, similarly, should provide for the free transit of goods in bond over the railway between the Jewish State and the Egyptian frontier.

The same principle applies to the question of access for commercial purposes to the Red Sea. The use of that exit to the East might prove in course of time of great advantage to both Arab and Jewish trade and industry, and, having regard to those possibilities, an enclave on the north-west coast of the Gulf of Aqaba should be retained under Mandatory administration, and the Arab Treaty should provide for the free transit of goods between the Jewish State and this enclave.

The Treaties should provide for similar facilities for the transit of goods between the Mandated Area and Haifa, the frontier and the Gulf of Aqaba.

4. Inter-State Subvention

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. Partition would mean, on the one hand, that the Arab Area would no longer profit from the taxable capacity of the Jewish Area. On the other hand, (1) the Jews would acquire a new right of sovereignty in the Jewish Area; (2) that Area, as we have defined it, would be larger than the existing area of Jewish land and settlement; (3) the Jews would be freed from their present liability for helping to promote the welfare of Arabs outside that Area. It is suggested, therefore, that the Jewish State should pay a subvention to the Arab State when Partition comes into effect. There have been recent precedents for equitable financial arrangements of this kind in those connected with the separation of Sind from Bombay and of Burma from the Indian Empire, and in accordance with those precedents a Finance Commission should be appointed to consider and report as to what the amount of the subvention should be.

The Finance Commission should also, consider and report on the proportion in which the Public Debt of Palestine, which now amounts to about £4,500,000, should be divided between the Arab and the Jewish States, and other financial questions. The Commission should also deal with telegraph and telephone systems in the event of Partition.

5. British Subvention

The Inter-State Subvention would adjust the financial balance in Palestine; but the plan involves the inclusion of Trans-Jordan in the Arab State. The taxable capacity of Trans-Jordan is very low and its revenues have never sufficed to meet the cost of its administration. From 1921 to the present day it has received grants-in-aid from the United Kingdom, which have amounted to a total sum of £1,253,000 or an average of about £78,000 a year. Grants have also been made towards the cost of the Trans-Jordan Frontier Force, and loans to the amount of £60, 000 have been provided for earthquake-relief and the distribution of seed.

The Mandate for Trans-Jordan ought not to be relinquished without securing, as far as possible, that the standard of administration should not fall too low through lack of funds to maintain it; and in this matter the British people might fairly be asked to do their part in facilitating a settlement. The continuance of the present Mandate would almost inevitably involve a recurrent and increasing charge on the British Treasury. If peace can be promoted by Partition, money spent on helping to bring it about and making it more effective for its purpose would surely be well spent. And apart from any such considerations the British people would, it is believed, agree to a capital payment in lieu of their present annual liability with a view to honouring their obligations and making peace in Palestine.

In the event of the Treaty system coming into force, Parliament should be asked to make a grant of £2,000,000 to the Arab State.

6. Tariffs and Ports

The Arab and Jewish States, being sovereign independent States, would determine their own tariffs. Subject to the terms of the Mandate, the same would apply to the Mandatory Government.

The tariff-policies of the Arab and Jewish States are likely to conflict, and it would greatly ease the position and promote the interests of both the Arab and Jewish States if they could agree to impose identical customs-duties on as many articles as possible, and if the Mandatory Government, likewise, could assimilate its customs-duties as far as might be with those of one or both of the two States.

It should be an essential part of the proposed Treaty System that a commercial convention should be concluded with a view to establishing a common tariff over the widest possible range of imported articles and to facilitating the freest possible interchange of goods between the three territories concerned.

7. Nationality

All persons domiciled in the Mandated Area (including Haifa, Acre, Tiberias, Safad and the enclave on the Gulf of Aqaba, as long as they remain under Mandatory administration) who now possess the status of British protected persons would retain it; but apart from this all Palestinians would become the nationals of the States in which they are domiciled.

8. Civil Services

It seems probable that, in the event of Partition, the services of the Arab and Jewish officials in the pre-existing Mandatory Administration would to a large extent be required by the Governments of the Arab and Jewish States respectively, whereas the number of British officials would be substantially reduced. The rights of all of them, including rights to pensions or gratuities, must be fully honoured in accordance with Article 28 of the existing Mandate. This matter should be dealt with by the Finance Commission.

9. Industrial Concessions

In the event of Partition agreements entered into by the Government of Palestine for the development and security of industries (e.g., the agreement with the Palestine Potash Company) should be taken over and carried out by the Governments of the Arab and Jewish States. Guarantees to that effect should be given in the Treaties. The security of the Electric Power Station at Jisr el Majami should be similarly guaranteed.

10. Exchange of Land and Population

If Partition is to be effective in promoting a final settlement it must mean more than drawing a frontier and establishing two States. Sooner or later there should be a transfer of land and, as far as possible, an exchange of population.

The Treaties should provide that, if Arab owners of land in the Jewish State or Jewish owners of land in the Arab State should wish to sell their land and any plantations or crops thereon, the Government of the State concerned should be responsible for the purchase of such land, plantations and crops at a price to be fixed, if requires, by the Mandatory Administration. For this purpose a loan should, if required, be guaranteed for a reasonable amount.

The political aspect of the land problem is still more important. Owing to the fact that there has been no census since 1931 it is impossible to calculate with any precision the distribution of population between the Arab and Jewish areas; but, according to an approximate estimate, in the area allocated to the Jewish State (excluding the urban districts to be retained for a period under Mandatory Administration) there are now about 225,000 Arabs. In the area allocated to the Arab State there are only about 1,250 Jews; but there are about 125,000 Jews as against 85,000 Arabs in Jerusalem and Haifa. The existence of these minorities clearly constitutes the most serious hindrance to the smooth and successful operation of Partition. If the settlement is to be clean and final, the question must be boldly faced and firmly dealt with. It calls for the highest statesmanship on the part of all concerned.

A precedent is afforded by the exchange effected between the Greek and Turkish populations on the morrow of the Greco-Turkish War of 1922. A convention was signed by the Greek and Turkish Governments, providing that, under the supervision of the League of Nations, Greek nationals of the Orthodox religion living in Turkey should be compulsorily removed to Greece, and Turkish nationals of the Moslem religion living in Greece to Turkey. The numbers involved were high — no less than some 1,300,000 Greeks and some 400,000 Turks. But so vigorously and effectively was the task accomplished that within about eighteen months from the spring of 1923 the whole exchange was completed. The courage of the Greek and Turkish statesmen concerned has been justified by the result. Before the operation the Greek and Turkish minorities had been a constant irritant. Now Greco-Turkish relations are friendlier than they have ever been before.

In Northern Greece a surplus of cultivable land was available or could rapidly be made available for the settlement of the Greeks evacuated from Turkey. In Palestine there is at present no such surplus. Room exists or could soon be provided within the proposed boundaries of the Jewish State for the Jews now living in the Arab area. It is the far greater number of Arab who constitute the major problem; and, while some of them could be re-settled on the land vacated by the Jews, far more land would be required for the re-settlement of all of them. Such information as is available justifies the hope that the execution of large-scale plans for irrigation, water-storage, and development in Trans-Jordan, Beersheba and the Jordan Valley would make provision for a much larger population than exists there at the present time.

Those areas, therefore, should be surveyed and an estimate made of the practical possibilities of irrigation and development as quickly as possible. If, as a result, it is clear that a substantial amount of land could be made available for the re-settlement of Arabs living in the Jewish area, the most strenuous efforts should be made to obtain an agreement for the transfer of land and population. In view of the present antagonism between the races and of the manifest advantage to both of them for reducing the opportunities of future friction to the utmost, it is to be hoped that the Arab and the Jewish leaders might show the same high statesmanship as that of the Turks and the Greeks and make the same bold decision for the sake of peace.

The cost of the proposed irrigation and development scheme would be heavier than the Arab State could be expected to bear. Here again the British people it is suggested, would be willing to help to bring about a settlement; and if an arrangement could be made for the transfer, voluntary or otherwise, of land and population, Parliament should be asked to make a grant to meet the cost of the aforesaid scheme.

If it should be agreed to terminate the Mandate and establish a Treaty System on a basis of Partition, there would be a period of transition before the new regime came into force, and during this period the existing Mandate would continue to be the governing instrument of the Palestine Administration. But the recommendations made in Part II of the Report as to what should be done tinder the existing Mandate presupposed its continuance for an indefinite time and would not apply to so changed a situation as the prospect of Partition would bring about.

The following are recommendations for the period of transition:


(1) Land - Steps should be taken to prohibit the purchase of land by Jews within the Arab Area (i.e., the area of the projected Arab State) or by Arabs within the Jewish Area (i.e., the area of the projected Jewish State).

The settlement of the plain-lands of the Jewish Area should be completed within two years.

(2) Immigration - Instead of the political "high-level" there should be a territorial restriction on Jewish immigration. No Jewish immigration into the Arab Area should be permitted. Since it would therefore not affect the Arab Area and since the Jewish State would soon become responsible for its results, the volume of Jewish immigration should be determined by the economic absorptive capacity of Palestine less the Arab Area.

(3) Trade - Negotiations should be opened without delay to secure the amendment of Article 18 of the Mandate and to place the external trade of Palestine upon a fairer basis.

(4) Advisory Council - The Advisory Council should, if possible, be enlarged by the nomination of Arab and Jewish representatives; but, if either party refused to serve, the Council should continue as at present.

(5) Local Government - The municipal system should be reformed on expert advice.

(6) Education - A vigorous effort should be made to increase the number of Arab schools. The "mixed schools" situated in the area to be administered under the new Mandate should be given every support, and the possibility of a British University should be considered, since those institutions might play an important part after Partition in helping to bring about an ultimate reconciliation of the races.
Chapter X: Conclusion

Considering the attitude which both the Arab and the Jewish representatives adopted in giving evidence, the Commission think it improbable that either party will be satisfied at first sight with the proposals submitted for the adjustment of their rival claims. For Partition means that neither will get all it wants. It means that the Arabs must acquiesce in the exclusion from their sovereignty of a piece of territory, long occupied and once ruled by them. It means that the Jews must be content with less than the Land of Israel they once ruled and have hoped to rule again. But it seems possible that on reflection both parties will come to realize that the drawbacks of Partition are outweighed by its advantages. For, if it offers neither party all it wants, it offers each what it wants most, namely freedom and security.

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.

(iii) In particular, the final limitation of the Jewish National Home within a fixed frontier and the enactment of a new Mandate for the protection of the Holy Places, solemnly guaranteed by the League of Nations, removes all anxiety lest the Holy Places should ever come under Jewish control.

(iv) As a set-off to the loss of territory the Arabs regard as theirs, the Arab State will receive a subvention from the Jewish State. It will also, in view of the backwardness of Trans-Jordan, obtain a grant of £2,000,000 from the British Treasury; and, if an agreement can be reached as to the exchange of land and population, a further grant will be made for the conversion, as far as may prove possible, of uncultivable land in the Arab State into productive land from which the cultivators and the State alike will profit.
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.
To both Arabs and Jews Partition offers a prospect - and there is none in any other policy - of obtaining the inestimable boon of peace. It is surely worth some sacrifice on both sides if the quarrel which the Mandate started could he ended with its termination. It is not a natural or old-standing feud. The Arabs throughout their history have not only been free from anti-Jewish sentiment but have also shown that the spirit of compromise is deeply rooted in their life. Considering what the possibility of finding a refuge in Palestine means to man thousands of suffering Jews, is the loss occasioned by Partition, great as it would be, more than Arab generosity can bear? In this, as in so much else connected with Palestine, it is not only the peoples of that country who have to be considered. The Jewish Problem is not the least of the many problems which are disturbing international relations at this critical time and obstructing the path to peace and prosperity. If the Arabs at some sacrifice could help to solve that problem, they would earn the gratitude not of the Jews alone but of all the Western World.

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.

As to the British people, they are bound to honour to the utmost of their power the obligations they undertook in the exigencies of war towards the Arabs and the Jews. When those obligations were incorporated in the Mandate, they did not fully realize the difficulties of the task it laid on them. They have tried to overcome them, not always with success. The difficulties have steadily become greater till now they seem almost insuperable. Partition offers a possibility of finding a way through them, a possibility of obtaining a final solution of the problem which does justice to the rights and aspirations of both the Arabs and the Jews and discharges the obligations undertaken towards them twenty years ago to the fullest extent that is practicable in the circumstances of the present time.

The Mufti tells the truth: The Arabs sold the land to the Jews

The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj al-Amin al-Husseini, will never be accused of loving Jews. In fact, 70 years ago today, the Mufti, who was Yasser Arafat's uncle, met with Adolph Hitler in Berlin to discuss the 'final solution' to the 'Jewish problem.'

In 1937, the Mufti testified before the Peel Commission, which was looking into the causes of unrest between Jews and Arabs in what was then known as 'Palestine.' The Mufti made a stunning admission: Most of the land that belonged to the Jews, which we are constantly accused of 'stealing,' had actually been purchased by the Jews from the Arabs. And the Arabs were what we lawyers call willing sellers.

The Peel Commission report had some very salutary things to say about the Zionists and their impact on the land and on Arab society and economy. One of the most important for debunking Arab anti-Israel accusations is:

“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 (Arab peasants) 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 (Jewish) 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…Much of the land (being farmed by the Jews) now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased…There was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land.” The land shortage decried by the Arabs “…was due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.” (Chapter V in the report).

El-Husseini’s interview on January 12, 1937 was preserved in the Commission’s notes and referenced, although not published, in the full report. It has been summarized by a number of scholars, including Kenneth Stein, The Land Question in Palestine 1917-1939 (Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2009) and Howard M. Sachar, A History of Israel from the Rise of Zionism to our Time (Alfred A. Knopf, 1976); and a detailed analysis with quotations from the interview can be found in Aaron Kleiman’s The Palestine Royal Commission, 1937 (Garland Publications, 1987, pp. 298ff.).

The selections from the interview presented below can be found on line here and here. Sir Laurie Hammond, a member of the Peel Commission, interviewed the Mufti about his insistence to the Commission that Zionists were stealing Arab land and driving peasants into homelessness. He spoke through an interpreter.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Would you give me the figures again for the land. I want to know how much land was held by the Jews before the Occupation. 

MUFTI: At the time of the Occupation the Jews held about 100,000 dunams. 

SIR L. HAMMOND: What year? 

MUFTI: At the date of the British Occupation. 

SIR L. HAMMOND: And now they hold how much? 

MUFTI: About 1,500,000 dunams: 1,200,000 dunams already registered in the name of the Jewish holders, but there are 300,000 dunams which are the subject of written agreements, and which have not yet been registered in the Land Registry. That does not, of course, include the land which was assigned, about 100,000 dunams.

SIR L. HAMMOND: What 100,000 dunams was assigned? Is that not included in, the 1,200,000 dunams? The point is this. He says that in 1920 at the time of the Occupation, the Jews only held 100,000 dunams, is that so? I asked the figures from the Land Registry, how much land the Jews owned at the time of the Occupation. Would he be surprised to hear that the figure is not 100,000 but 650,000 dunams? 

MUFTI: It may be that the difference was due to the fact that many lands were bought by contract which were not registered. 

SIR L. HAMMOND: There is a lot of difference between 100,000 and 650,000. 

MUFTI: In one case they sold about 400,000 dunams in one lot. 

SIR L. HAMMOND: Who? An Arab? 

MUFTI: Sarsuk. An Arab of Beyrouth. 

SIR L. HAMMOND: His Eminence gave us a picture of the Arabs being evicted from their land and villages being wiped out. What I want to know is, did the Government of Palestine, the Administration, acquire the land and then hand it over to the Jews? 

MUFTI: In most cases the lands were acquired. 

SIR L. HAMMOND: I mean forcibly acquired-compulsory acquisition as land would be acquired for public purposes? < MUFTI: No, it wasn’t. 

SIR L. HAMMOND: Not taken by compulsory acquisition? 

MUFTI: No. 

SIR L. HAMMOND: But these lands amounting to some 700,000 dunams were actually sold? 

MUFTI: Yes, they were sold, but the country was placed in such conditions as would facilitate such purchases. 

SIR I HAMMOND: I don’t quite understand what you mean by that. They were sold. Who sold them? 

MUFTI: Land owners. 

SIR I HAMMOND: Arabs? 

MUFTI: In most cases they were Arabs. 

SIR L. HAMMOND: Was any compulsion put on them to sell? If so, by whom? 

MUFTI: As in other countries, there are people who by force of circumstances, economic forces, sell their land. 

SIR L. HAMMOND: Is that all he said? 

MUFTI: A large part of these lands belong to absentee landlords who sold the land over the heads of their tenants, who were forcibly evicted. The majority of these landlords were absentees who sold their land over the heads of their tenants. Not Palestinians but Lebanese. 

SIR L. HAMMOND: Is His Eminence in a position to give the Commission a list of the people, the Arabs who have sold lands, apart from those absentee landlords? 

MUFTI: It is possible for me to supply such a list. 

SIR L. HAMMOND: I ask him now this: does he think that as compared with the standard of life under the Turkish rule the position of the fellahin in the villages has improved or deteriorated? 

MUFTI: Generally speaking I think their situation has got worse. 

SIR L. HAMMOND: Is taxation heavier or lighter? 

MUFTI: Taxation was much heavier then, but now there are additional burdens. 

SIR L. HAMMOND: I am asking him if it is now, the present day, as we are sitting together here, is it a fact that the fellahin has a much lighter tax than he had under the Turkish rule? Or is he taxed more heavily? 

MUFTI: The present taxation is lighter, but the Arabs nevertheless have now other taxation, for instance, customs. 

LORD PEEL: And the condition of the fellahin as regards, for example, education. Are there more schools or fewer schools now? 

MUFTI: They may have more schools, comparatively, but at the same time there has been an increase in their numbers. 

The Hajj Amin el-Husseini, the intractable opponent of Zionism, a Jew-hater on par with Hitler, admitted under questioning that no Arab land was stolen; no Arabs were wiped out, no villages destroyed. Rather, the Jews bought hundreds of thousands of dunam (about ¼ of an acre) of land from willing sellers, often from absentee Arab landowners. Moreover, thanks in part to the Zionists and the British, the quality of life for Palestine’s Arab peasantry was vastly improved, with less taxation, more schools, and an increase in Arab population.

The next time someone spouts the Arab line about how Zionists came and stole Arab land and drove Arabs out, just quote the Mufti.

Here's betting that the people who come out to defend the 'Palestinians' on this blog will ignore this post. By the way, in From Time Immemorial, Joan Peters quotes extensively from the Peel Commission testimony. It's no small wonder why.

Labels: Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, Peel Commission