Thursday, August 20, 2015

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.

The Land Question in Greater Israel aka Palestine - Ottoman land ownership and laws


The Land Question in Palestine - 

The issue of land ownership is crucial to understanding the evolution of Zionism in Greater Israel aka Palestine and the genesis of the Israeli-Arab/Palestinian conflict. The issues surrounding the Land Question are not simple, and they have been the subject of numerous claims and counter-claims since the start of the British Mandate. The proportion of rhetoric on this question, relative to the amount of hard data, has always been very high.
The two major Arab-Palestinian claims are 1) that Zionists were systematically dispossessing Arab fellahin in the period 1917-1948 and 2)  by 1948, the Zionists had purchased less than 8% of the land of Greater Israel aka Palestine, while the Arabs "owned" about 45% and the rest was government land.
Introduction and summary - It appears that while Zionists had purchased about 6-10% of land, depending on how it is figured, the actual share of Arab holdings  was much lower than is stated and the share of government land was much higher. There was never a systematic survey of Palestinian lands. The inability of Zionists to acquire land was due in part to the fact that the British mandate government violated the conditions of the mandate and tended to make government land available at cut rate prices to Arabs rather than to Zionist purchasers. The high figure of Arab ownership was apparently generated by counting all village and town land and other dubious claims as "Arab," though  under the terms of the British mandate fo Palestine, Jews and the Zionist organization should have had a share in ownership of public land. None of this land was ever purchased by any Arab, but it was assigned as "Arab land."   Arab "ownership" was further inflated by chaotic registration policies that legitimized squating after the fact, and by counting land as "owned" when in fact it had been leased. Most of the land in Greater Israel aka Palestine registered in the name of individuals was not held privately, but was registered as "Miri" holdings, that gave the user the right to the usufruct of the land as a sharecropper. The land itself remained property of the government. If the land lay fallow for three years, it should have reverted to the government. There was an unknown but large area of such unused land that was not reverted to government use because of the wishes of the British mandate personnel to please the Arab-Palestinians.   
The Arab Fellah had been steadily displaced or "dispossessed" from the land by factors other than Zionist purchases. These included gradual industrialization and urbanization which was taking place throughout the Middle East and was accelerated by Zionist settlement and development, as well as the poor administration and unfair nature of archaic Ottoman land laws. The number of landless Arabs was apparently deliberately exaggerated in the Hope Simpson report by misrepresentation of statistics.
The Jewish Agency and other Jewish organizations and individuals had purchased half of the available arable agricultural land in in what would become The State of Israel by 1948, and the Jewish sector produced twice as much in tax revenues as the Arab sector, though it accounted for only a third of the population of Greater Israel aka Palestine. Nonetheless, it is difficult to make a case that Zionist settlement affected the Arabs of greater Israel aka Palestine adversely. Arab standard of living rose steadily in Greater Israel aka Palestine except for drought years and the self-inflicted misery of the Arab general strike. Jewish land purchases affected fairly small numbers of Arab-Palestinians who had been engaged in extensive agriculture and usually found better paying employment or better land. The Arab population of Greater Israel aka Palestine grew steadily. There was no evidence that Arabs were leaving Greater Israel aka Palestine for economic reasons.


Zionism, Greater Israel aka Palestine land purchases and dispossession of the Arabs

The Zionist goal of purchasing land in Greater Israel aka Palestine both under Turkish rule and under the British mandate was in part frustrated by acute lack of funds, and by various regulations imposed by the Turks and the British, despite the fact that the British were supposed to be facilitating the construction of a Jewish National Home under the terms of the mandate for Palestine. A chief complaint used by the Grand Mufti Hajj Amin Al Husseini to incite rioting, especially in the Arab Revolt was that Zionist land purchases were "dispossessing" Palestinian Arabs, who would soon have no means of livelihood.  *(The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem testified in 1937 in front of the British Peel Commission that the Jews did not steal any land and that they purchased the land from rich Arabs at above market prices). Given the lack of orderly statistics on land ownership and displacement, and an objective criterion for such displacement, these claims, echoed by modern writers as well, are difficult to investigate and evaluate. They have been elevated to a dogmatic claim that Arabs were being dispossessed systematically in Palestine, but there is in fact little substantial evidence for this prior to 1948 (See Zionism and Its Impact).
A study by Kenneth W. Stein (Stein, Kenneth W., The Land Question In Palestine, 1917-1939, Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1984 and Stein, Kenneth W., Palestine's Rural Economy, 1917 - 1939, Studies in ZionismVol. 8, no. 1 (1987); pp. 25 - 49 )  concluded that Palestinian Arab fellahin were being systematically displaced from the land, but that this was an ongoing process that had begun in Ottoman times, and was not related to Zionist settlement. Rather, he attributed it to the archaic land laws, the Tanzimat reform of those laws which favored the rich, competition from inexpensive imports and the depredations of World War I, which had ruined Palestinian agriculture and put many poor peasants hopelessly in debt. The eagerness of owners large and small to sell their land no doubt increased as the prices that others were willing to pay increased. As in all countries at the beginning of the twentieth century, agriculture became less and less capable of supplying a livelihood and could not compete with other land uses and labor opportunities. Greedy landlords found ways to evict tenants and sell the land or put it to more productive uses, subverting laws intended to protect tenant farmers. The land was usually not sold to Zionists or Jews.
Different statistics have been advanced by each side to prove whatever point they wished to prove at any given time, and actual statistics of land ownership and utilization are very scarce and non-systematic.
About 17%-20% of the land area that was British Mandate Palestine is now estimated to be arable, the total area being 26,625,600 metric dunam (a metric dunam is 1000 square meters; the Turkish dunam was somewhat smaller)  between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean. Cultivable land was estimated at about 6.4 million dunams out of 26 million. In the 1930s, Maurice Bennett, seconded to Sir John Hope-Simpson (who was to prepare the Simpson report) made far different estimates of arable land, which are given below
Table 1: Estimated Cultivable Land in Palestine by region, 1936*
RegionCultivable AreaTotal AreaPercent Arable
Hills of Galilee1,054,0002,083,30051
Acre Plain203,300315,90064
Plain of Esdraeleon302,800351,10086
Jezreel Valley636,000648,00098
Huleh Basin173,500261,60066
Jordan valley255,700681,20037
Coastal Plain2,303,6002,929,30079
Hills of Judea and Samaria2,165,0006,005,30036
Wilderness of Judea01,050,9000
Beersheba subdistrict (Negev and Gaza)1,160,00012,300,009
Total
8,252,900
26,625,60033
*from Stein, The Land Question in Palestine, Page 4
It is none too clear precisely what each of the above districts includes. The "Hills of Judea and Samaria" probably includes Jerusalem and the approaches to it, and is not restricted to the area known today as the "West Bank." Gaza was eventually separated from the Beersheba subdistrict. Other estimates found about 7 million or as high as 12 million metric dunams of "cultivable" land, depending apparently on how "cultivable" was defined (Stein, Land Question, pp. 106-107). For example, if one excludes swamps and marshland, because these areas could not be cultivated without development, there was considerably less land than if one includes the swampland.
Jewish land purchases at the time were concentrated in the Jezreel valley, plain of Esdraelon and coastal plain. (see Buying the Emek for an account of some of the land purchases). It is difficult to estimate the total effect of Zionist land purchases. In the Jezreel valley, the largest single purchase of the Zionists, 240,209 dunams were acquired, of which 129,254 were tenanted. In total 688 families had lived on those lands (348 dunam per family on average), and received 27,434 pounds in compensation (Stein, page 60). In total, the Zionists purchased 1,393,531 dunams of land to 1945 (Stein, Land Problem, Appendix II p. 226) , of which roughly 850,000 dunams had been purchased under the mandate, and the rest had been purchased when the area was under Turkish control. This constituted about 5.4% of the total land area of mandatory Palestine (these figures exclude land purchased in the Hauran in Syria). The above figures do not include additional lands acquired by unregistered transfers, legal transfers made after 1945 and various concessions. In all, Stein estimates that the Jews had acquired about 2 million dunams of land by 1948 (Stein, Land Problem, Appendix II p. 227).  This would be 7.6% of the total area of the British mandate, 14% of the land of the UN partition plan (about 30% excluding the Negev, which was almost all government owned) and about 10% of the area within the Green line. Granott gave a figure of 1,734,000 dunams (Granott, Abraham, Agrarian Reform and the Record of Israel, Eyre and Spottiswood, 1956 p. 28) The land almost all fell within the area eventually allotted to the Jewish state by the UN partition plan, and the land eventually within the green lines. Some land parcels in the Jerusalem area and Hebron were lost to the Jordanians in 1948 and recovered to Jewish ownership in 1967. Jews had also purchased about 4% of the land in Gaza, and less than 1% in the entire West bank aka Judea and Samaria.
Assuming that the Jezreel valley purchases were somewhat representative of all land purchases, about 4,000 families or perhaps 24,000 persons over a period of over 60 years were directly affected in some way by all the Zionist land purchases, including those who received or bought alternative land. It is likely that the Valley of Jezreel purchases were not typical, and that other lands purchased were less tenanted. The lake Huleh area which had an area of over 50,000 dunam, was uninhabited for example. The Wadi Hawarith area of 30,000 dunams had 86 cultivators, which is likewise about 348 dunam of land per tenant. However the 89 cultivators in Hawarith also supported or were associated with day laborers, grazers, Bedouin and others who lived in the area, giving a total of 1,200 people were in some way affected by the sale, even if they did not lose land that they had owned or tenanted. This would mean that each 25 dunam sold affected someone, or in all about 56,000 people would have been affected in some way over a 65 year period out of a total population of about 1.2 million Arabs in all of Palestine in 1948, and perhaps 2 million or so who had lived in Palestine over that period. The upper estimate is less than 5% of the Arab population of Palestine.
An inquiry into "Landless Arabs" who had sold their land or had lived on land sold to Jews since 1920 was instituted in 1931, with a view to make restitution to those who who had valid claims. To January 1933, 3,177 claims were made - a total of 15,000 to 18,000 people may have been affected. The relative lack of claimants was explained by the Secretary of the Palestine Administration as due to the fact that most claimants had found more profitable occupations in the cities. Most of those "affected' had thus became richer. Of the 3,177 claims, about 600- 900 were ultimately accepted. Stein claims that this was nothing but a Jewish Agency political victory, but even had 5000 claims been accepted, it would still have represented a tiny percentage of the Arab population of Palestine. 
Ottoman records show that 92% of the land was owned by the government and the balance was owned by absentee landlords and a minute some by local Arab Shicks and Arab leaders, furthermore; some land was leased to local Arabs as sharecroppers. There was never more than 5% unemployment in Palestine during the 1930s and thereafter. Though some lost land, they benefited from urbanization and industrialization and earned more working or trading in the cities than they had on their farms. According to the criteria adopted by the British to assess "landlessness," only about 600 families, or perhaps 3,000 to 3,600 people became landless. in all this period.  
Nonetheless, the Grand Mufti Hajj Amin Al Husseini and his extremist allies managed to convey the impression that large numbers of Palestinian Arabs were becoming landless and impoverished.(The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem testified in 1937 in front of the British Peel Commission that the Jews did not steal any land and that they purchased the land from rich Arabs at above market prices).
This was also the belief of Sir John Chancellor, High Commissioner for Palestine, or at least, it was the theory he tried to disseminate, blaming the Arab riots of 1929 on this problem. The British government sent Sir John Hope Simpson to investigate. Hope Simpson, an official of the Indian administration, knew nothing about Palestine except what Chancellor told him, and he adopted Chancellor's view. William Johnson and Robert Crosbie had done a survey of Palestinian rural occupations, and concluded that as many as 29% of the Arabs did not own land. The survey did not make any claim as to why these Arabs did not own land, or whether they had ever owned land, and it did not not claim that they were dispossessed. In agricultural societies, it was normal that there would be shepherds, artisans of various types, teachers, clergy, owners of small stores, people engaged in transport, day laborers,  workers in the Nablus soap factories and other small industries, blacksmiths etc. none of whom necessarily owned land or worked land as tenant farmers at any time. However, Hope-Simpson misused the survey data to claim that huge numbers of Arabs had been dispossessed (Stein, Land Question, p 109) and the result was the Hope-Simpson Report, which recommended an end to Jewish immigration, which would, it was claimed, dispossess the Arabs and leave them without a livelihood. Hope-Simpson, who exemplified the British approach in the 30s, made several other errors in addition to exaggerating the number of dispossessed Arabs and the causes of their dispossession. The approach assumed that people would continue to make a living from agriculture and that Palestine would always have a rural economy. Were that the case, Palestine could not support any immigration at all, or any population increase, because agriculture had always provided a subsistence living. With the development of inexpensive transportation, which could bring in imported food, Arab-Palestinian agriculture was doomed. The British and all other experts also assumed that it would never be practical to irrigate the land by pumping water from the sea of Galilee, and that therefore the amount of of cultivable land, and the number of people who could be supported in general in the land, would remain very limited. This idea was false as well, as the Israel National Water Carrier project proved. Another assumption was that Arab-Palestinian agriculture must always remain primarily extensive, and therefore could not use land efficiently. Only about 5% of the Arabs derived their living from intensive agriculture,  (Stein, Land Question, p. 5)   Hope-Simpson and his successors also ignored the salient fact that overall, the standard of living of the Arabs of Palestine had improved tremendously, a by-product of the industrialization and the relatively large investments in Greater Israel aka Palestine made by the Zionists. Neither the British nor the Arabs, made any substantial capital investments in Greater Israel aka Palestine.

Who owned what land in Greater Israel aka Palestine?  

The Ottoman land ownership laws and the status of land ownership in Greater Israel aka Palestine are crucially important in the history of Zionism, because of Zionist attempts to purchase land, Arab and British attempts to block them, and subsequent claims by Arabs that they had "owned" most of the land in what is now the State of Israel. It is also important in considering the claims of Arab-Palestinian refugees for restitution. Under the law of equity. The Arab countries must provide restitutions to the million Jewish families expelled from Arab countries, since the Arabs confiscated all their personal assets, businesses, homes and 120,400 sq. km. of Real estate property.
Ottoman law divided land into several categories:
Mulk - Privately owned land in the Western sense. Only a tiny portion of the land was owned in this way. This was the only actual non-government private land in Greater Israel aka Palestine to which people had inalienable ownership rights.
Miri: Land owned by the government (originally the Ottoman crown) and suitable for agricultural use. Individuals could purchase a deed to cultivate this land and pay a tithe to the government as sharecroppers. Ownership could be transferred only with the approval of the state. Miri rights could be transferred to heirs, and the land could be sub-let to tenants.  If the owner died without an heir or the land was not cultivated for three years, the land would revert to the state.
Mahlul - Uncultivated Miri lands that would revert to the state, in theory after three years.
Waqf: Land belonging to the Muslim religious endowment, which supposedly could not be alienated or sold. Some categories of this type of land were in fact purchased by Zionists at one time.
Matruka - Land left for public use such as highways, as well as communal lands and pastures. These lands belonged to the state, and not to communities or individuals. It is not clear that this category actually existed in Palestine ( Stein, Land Question, p. 14). It is however, listed in the Hope-Simpson report. 
Mawat - (or Mewat) So-called “dead”, unreclaimed land. It constituted about 50 to 60% of the land in Greater Israel aka Palestine. It belonged to the government. Private individuals could purchase and register this land as their own for its unreclaimed value, but it was just as easy to simply cultivate it.     (Stein, Land Question, p. 13). If the land had been cultivated with permission, it would be registered, at least under the British Mandate, free of charge. Communities and individuals often expanded their land and land holdings "informally" by cultivating or using such land. According to  the Hope-Simpson Report Mewat land was probably of considerable extent. It was defined as any land that was more than a mile and a half from a village, and was not owned by anyone. However, no systematic survey was ever done, so it was impossible to determine the precise extent of Mewat land.
In addition to the above official categories, the following two concepts were in in use in Greater Israel aka Palestine:
Musha' - Musha' land was Miri or Mulk land that was cultivated in common by numerous owners in common. Often this was unregistered land, or land to which Miri rights had been acquired by squatting and eventual registration. About 5 million dunams of land in Greater Israel aka Palestine were Musha' land in Greater Israel aka Palestine in 1933.( Stein, Land Question, p. 14). Musha land was gradually sold out to absentee owners who lived in town, and used tenants or hired labor to work their lands as sharecroppers. Musha and subtenanted Miri land probably constituted the bulk of agricultural land ownership of cultivated land by Arabs.
jiftlik or Mudawara - Mudawara lands were private lands that had been bequeathed to the Sultan and were therefore government property. The largest such parcel was the Beisan area land which consisted of 302,000 dunams (Stein, Land Question, p. 62) (Originally this land was apparently about 394,000 dunams - (Stein, Land Question, pages 107-108)). According to the Hope-Simpson Report  (table on p 58) the second largest Jiftlik area was apparently in Rafa and comprised 90,000 dunams. Along with other such lands it was leased to Arabs who had been there "for many years" or so they claimed and not substantiated. The third largest Jiftlik area was in the Jericho area and covered about 75,000 dunams. (Stein, Land Question, p. 14). The government could lease these lands to tenants, in such a way that they were not liable to eviction as they were on Miri or Mulk land, but after 1933, it was no longer possible to acquire such tenancy. Instead, the British government had begun to sell these lands.
(The above discussion and definitions are taken from Stein, Land Question, p. 11 ff)
Stein gives various numbers for State land ownership. He states that "Ottoman state land comprised 40 percent of the total land area of Palestine north of Beesheba" (Land Question, page 12). As there were about 14 million dunams, this would amount to about 6,000,000 dunams of land. However, he then tells us that "a considerable portion" of this land was alienated into private hands, but then he tells us on the same page that in 1931 the total state land exclusive of the Beersheba district amounted to 959,000 dunams, which is about 7.1% of the land north of Beersheba. It is unclear how much of this was Jiftlik land or Mahlul land. However, the 60% or so of Mewat land was also also government land, and this was never surveyed.
Not mentioned by Stein and other authorities are lands that are owned by the Greek Orthodox Church. The Greek Orthodox church is and was one of the largest private landholders in Greater Israel aka Palestine and particularly in Jerusalem. They hold the land under a Waqf-like policy. They will not sell it, but they have leased portions of it in long term leases to the Israeli government, including about half of downtown Jerusalem, the Knesset Building, the neighborhood of Rehavia and the Israel Museum. They continue to own the land and were never "dispossessed."  
An exact assessment of the distribution of real ownership in the above categories is probably impossible. Land registration in Palestine can charitably be described as chaotic under both the Ottoman and British regimes. In 1925, three quarters of the land in Palestine was "held" by unregistered title. The Wadi Hawarith parcel of 30,000 dunams was registered as measuring 5,500 Turkish dunams   (Stein, Land Question, p. 21). Supposedly, this was because fellahin were unwilling to register title, because under the Ottoman law, it would obligate them for military service, as well as taxes. To an unknown extent, this also reflected encroachments and squatting on various forms of government land. Of the total of over 12 million dunams of land in the Beersheba district, only 50,000 were registered. While much of this land was unused, much of it was used in fact by nomadic or sedentary Bedouin, who never bothered to file any land claim, so that they would not need to pay taxes, and because they were, paradoxically, afraid that once registered, the land could be alienated from their ownership through marriage of daughters, owners dying intestate etc. (Stein, land question, p 22).  In general, Ottoman administration was such that residents tried to avoid all contact with authorities whenever possible, fearing conscription, taxes and other eventualities.
Throughout Palestine, even the land that was "registered" was mostly unsurveyed:
In addition to the lack of registration and underregistration of property, no map or cadastral survey accompanied the description of the lands registered. Boundaries in many instances were identified by roads, buildings or referenced to a local piece of history such as the "land of the great fight' or "land of the big rock." During the 1920s, the director of lands stated with complete frankness and accuracy that he was unable from registered information and the isolated plan that sometimes accompanied it, to locate the piece of land that a registered transaction purported to concern. (Stein, land question, p 22).
The British never managed to overcome this chaos. They considered that land was "owned" for tax purposes if someone could be found to pay the taxes, and the figure of 45% Arab "ownership" is based on this calculation, including village commons and other areas that were used for cultivation as well as unregistered holdings of different type, Mawat land that was "acquired" by squatting etc. Most of it, except for the tiny portion of Mulk holdings, was not owned in the conventional sense even if it was registered. The proliferation of abandoned land in greater Israel aka Palestine had long been noted by travelers. Miri Land that was abandoned reverted to the state. 
The only exact records of ownership and transfer of ownership that existed, insofar was this was possible without accurate information, were the Land Books of Jewish settlements, which were legally recognized by the British Mandate government in 1926, in the framework of their attempts to regularize land registration. (Stein, Land Question, pp 32-33).
Article 6 of the League of Nations British Mandate for Palestine had stated:
ART. 6. The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
This provision was never really carried out. In fact, the British mandate government did the opposite, in most cases, making available Mawat and Jiftlik and other state lands to Arabs and encourage Arabs to register claims on state lands as well in violation of international treaties. The Beisan Jiftlik lands were registered to various Arab tenants for fairly nominal fees (one seventh to one fourteenth of actual value, and Jews were excluded from the agreements, again in violation of the Mandate terms and international treaties. The Arab tenants illegally sold their land to the Jews at full market prices, and eventually, the British relented and legalized the sales (Stein, Land Question pp 62-63), but they never allowed the Jewish Agency to purchase the lands directly. In all, according to Stein, the British mandate estimated that there were about 959,000 metric dunams of State land, including all the Jiftlik lands. Manifestly, this did not include all the lands south of Beersheba, and may have been intended to represent only cultivable land. Only 98,000 of these were allocated or about to be allocated to Jews in 1930 who purchased the land. About 394,000 dunam were to be allocated to Arabs from the Beisan lands without official proper purchase (eventually reduced to 302,000), 300,000 dunams were leased to Arabs, on an annual basis, 52,000 were part of the Huleh Ottoman concession that eventually came under Jewish control who paid for it. (Stein, Land Question, pages 107-108). The 800,000 or so dunams purchased by Jews during the early mandate years were therefore balanced out in part by transfer or leasing of government land to Arabs, land that should have been transferred to Jews if article 6 of the terms of the mandate had been followed (which the British violated repeatedly).
As from 1940, in violations of international treaties and the terms of the mandate for Palestine, the British land regulations officially forbade or severely limited land purchases by the Jewish Agency. In fact, however, the British could limit only the registration of land, and the Jewish agency continued to purchase land. In 1940, the Jewish Agency had purchased about 22,000 dunam. In 1941, despite the land regulations, it still purchased over 14,000 dunams, and during each of the subsequent war years it purchased 18,000 dunam (Stein, Land Question, Appendix 2 p 226).
From the false point of view of the Arabs, all these lands "belonged" to Arabs, since all of the land of Palestine "belonged" to the Arabs, inasmuch as they falsely considered themselves the rightful owners. It is a circular definition of ownership and not very meaningful. The Arabs of Palestine had never exercised sovereignty and did not own most of the land by private purchase. It was government land that had belonged to the Ottoman empire and before that to the various Turkish, Roman and other empires. If there had been "actual" owners in history, they were the Jews of 2,000 or more years ago.
A map that is often presented in pro-Arab/Palestinian accounts enhances the impression that Greater Israel aka Palestine had belonged to the Arabs and had been "stolen" by the Jews, which is known as false. The map was prepared by a subcommittee of the UN and shows "Jewish" and "non-Jewish" land ownership in different areas. The "catch" is that all of the land that was not purchased and registered to Jews or the Jewish agency, including government lands, is categorized as "non-Jewish." The Beersheba district, which was 99% government land, is shown as being 99% "Non-Jewish" (see Palestine Land Ownership Map 1944) It was also "99% non-Arab."
From the point of view of the Arabs, likewise, the British Mandate provisions for "close settlement" of Jews on the land, and the entire British mandate, were illegal creations of the Western imperialists. But the League of Nations British Mandate was international law. For some reason, the Arab-Palestinians concern for "international legitimacy" evaporates when such laws favor the Zionists. Moreover, the land of Greater Israel aka Palestine was for the most part virtually worthless prior to the mandate. Land prices soared because of the British mandate, and this was due entirely to Jewish settlement, development and Zionist investments. The land of the Sursocks was sold in 1921 for 3 to 6 Egyptian piasters per dunam, which was 40 to 80 times what they had paid for the land. (Stein, Land Question, page 65). In effect, the British policy and the Arab "land claims" amounted to saying "we will take the money of the Jews, but we will not give them their rights).
In total, approximately 6 million dunams of land were registered as taxable by Jews and a minority of Arabs in 1936, excluding the Beersheba district, according to the Peel commission (Stein, Land Question, page 107). Taxable and registered land area in the Beersheba district was negligible, as noted. If we accept Stein's estimate of Jewish land ownership as two million dunams in 1948, and assume that all of that area was taxable, then the Jews owned roughly a third of the usable land exclusive of the Waqf land in all of Greater Israel aka Palestine, and probably about half of the usable, taxable land in the area that would be allotted to Israel. This makes sense in view of the fact that the Jewish sector of the British Palestinian mandate economy produced twice as much tax revenues as the Arab sector. Given the population differences, it means that each Jew paid about four times as much taxes as each Arab. If the Jews did not own a significant proportion of the land, it would probably have been difficult for them to achieve that level of productivity.

* Map of The British Mandate for Greater Israel aka Palestine in 1921:
  

* Evidence of Haj Amin al-Husseini
Before the Royal Commission, January 12, 1937

The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini was a Nazi who mixed Nazi propaganda and Islam and was wanted for war crimes in Yugoslavia. His mix of militant Islam was an inspiration for both Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein. He was also a close relative of Yasser Arafat: Arafat's real name was Abd al-Rahman abd al-Bauf Arafat al-Qud al-Husseini. (Arafat was born, raised, and educated in Egypt and was a paid terrorist for Egypt.) Arafat himself tries to keep this a secret while Saddam Hussein was raised in the house of his uncle Khayrallah Tulfah, leader in the Mufti's pro-Nazi coup in Iraq in May 1941.
My comments and clarifications appear in blue below. We'll let Arafat's Nazi uncle speak for himself. This runs along with other material I got hold of from the UN, etc.
Evidence of Haj Amin al-Husseini Before the Royal Commission LORD PEEL: ... Just one question, then. You want completely to stop Jewish immigration. What do you want to do with the 400,000 Jews here at present?
MUFTI: They will live as they always did live previously in Arab countries, with complete freedom and liberty, as natives of the country. In fact Moslem rule has always been known for its tolerance, and as a matter of fact Jews used to come to Eastern countries under Arab rule to escape persecution in Europe. According to history, Jews had a most quiet and peaceful residence under Arab rule....
This region had not been under Arab rule for centuries but under Turkish rule. Turks were far more tolerant and fair with Jews then most Arabs ever were. They gave refuge to Jews and others fleeing Christian terror in Europe for centuries. In the mid 1800's they gave formal legal protection to Jews (something Arabs refuse do even today) and encouraged Jewish immigration. They strongly approved of Zionism because the whole region was a depopulated wasteland and hoped to bring prosperity to a crumbling Ottoman Empire.
MUFTI: But I can say that the Jews, many thousands, are actually living in Iraq and Syria under Arab rule and have the same rights and the same position as the other inhabitants of the countries.
Here he admits the large Jewish communities of the Muslim world did exist. After 1948 these 870,000 Arab Jews had there property stolen, stripped of their citizenship, and forced to leave their homelands. Most settled in Israel and they and their children make up the majority of Jews there today. They are just as "Arab" as Arafat and his Nazi Uncle.
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: First of all I would like to say that one of the members of our Committee will deal later with the land question, but nevertheless I will give you the figures. 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 Beirut.
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.
He admits the property was properly purchased, not stolen or seized.
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?
It was sold willingly by Arabs. He admits this, but...
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: They were not prevented from selling the land, and mostly the country was in such economic condition as facilitated the sale. If the Government had the interest of these poor people at heart they should have prevented sales and these people would not have been evicted from their land. 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.
On the one hand he tries to claim economic circumstances forced these property owners to sell but turns around and admits they are absentee landlords who happened to be rich (living in Lebanon just down the road) and the people there were tenants sharecroppers. But...
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: I am sure the Department of Lands can supply such a list.
SIR L. HAMMOND: I didn't ask him to tell me where I could get the information from. I asked was he in a position to give it to me.
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. On this very point a member of the Arab Committee will deal.
LORD PEEL: On the burden of taxation?
MUFTI: Yes.
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 "increase in numbers" is the truth. The British while blocking Jewish immigration had allowed Arabs to pour in surrounding countries to swell the Arab population and appease people like this. In 1921 the whole region (see map above) only had 700,000 people. If this was so bad, why did so many move in?
SIR L. HAMMOND: Is there any conscription for the army now?
MUFTI: No.
He admits the Arabs are not taxed, forcibly conscripted into the military, have schools, etc. out from under Muslim rule. But...
SIR L. HAMMOND: Would the people like to have that back?
MUFTI: Yes. Provided we have our own Government.
What he really means is the rule of him and his wealthy family. That way he can steal everything he can get. Palestine, a British creation from WWI was a wasteland and economic basket case as are Muslim lands today. The only wealth and development in the whole region was that done by Jews. He wanted it all and his family had never done anything for a single poor Arab even to this day. Arafat, according to Forbes, is worth over $300 million while his people starve. Who says stealing from one's own people isn't profitable?
SIR L. HAMMOND: Then am I to take it from his evidence that he thinks the Arab portion of the population would be more happy if they reverted to a Turkish rule than under the present Mandatory rule?
MUFTI: That is a fact.
Yeah, sure.



Synonyms and alternate spellings:  

Further Information: See Granott, Abraham, Agrarian Reform and the Record of Israel, Eyre and Spottiswood, 1956Stein, Kenneth W. The Land Question In Palestine, 1917-1939 by Kenneth W. Stein, University of North Carolina Press, 1984; Buying the EmekPalestine's Rural Economy, 1917 - 1939;  Arab Revolt;  Zionism and Its Impact  For an example of a lurid pro-Palestinian account see  Halbrook, Stepen, The alienation of a homeland: How Palestine became Israel, The Journal of Liberation Studies, Vol. V, No. 4, 1981