The Mufti tells the truth: The Arabs sold the land to the Jews
The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj al-Amin al-Husseini, will never be accused of loving Jews. In fact, 70 years ago today, the Mufti, who was Yasser Arafat's uncle,
met with Adolph Hitler in Berlin to discuss the 'final solution' to the 'Jewish problem.'
In 1937, the Mufti testified before the Peel Commission, which was looking into the causes of unrest between Jews and Arabs in what was then known as 'Palestine.' The Mufti made a stunning admission: Most of the land that belonged to the Jews, which we are constantly accused of 'stealing,' had actually been purchased by the Jews from the Arabs. And the Arabs were what we lawyers call
willing sellers.
The Peel Commission report had some very salutary things to say about the Zionists and their impact on the land and on Arab society and economy. One of the most important for debunking Arab anti-Israel accusations is: “The Arab population shows a remarkable increase since 1920, and it has had some share in the increased prosperity of Palestine. Many Arab landowners have benefited from the sale of land and the profitable investment of the purchase money. The fellaheen (Arab peasants) are better off on the whole than they were in 1920. This Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the (Jewish) National Home. In particular, the Arabs have benefited from social services which could not have been provided on the existing scale without the revenue obtained from the Jews…Much of the land (being farmed by the Jews) now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased…There was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land.” The land shortage decried by the Arabs “…was due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.” (Chapter V in the report).
El-Husseini’s interview on January 12, 1937 was preserved in the Commission’s notes and referenced, although not published, in the full report. It has been summarized by a number of scholars, including Kenneth Stein, The Land Question in Palestine 1917-1939 (Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2009) and Howard M. Sachar, A History of Israel from the Rise of Zionism to our Time (Alfred A. Knopf, 1976); and a detailed analysis with quotations from the interview can be found in Aaron Kleiman’s The Palestine Royal Commission, 1937 (Garland Publications, 1987, pp. 298ff.).
The selections from the interview presented below can be found on line here and here. Sir Laurie Hammond, a member of the Peel Commission, interviewed the Mufti about his insistence to the Commission that Zionists were stealing Arab land and driving peasants into homelessness. He spoke through an interpreter.
SIR L. HAMMOND: Would you give me the figures again for the land. I want to know how much land was held by the Jews before the Occupation.
MUFTI: At the time of the Occupation the Jews held about 100,000 dunams.
SIR L. HAMMOND: What year?
MUFTI: At the date of the British Occupation.
SIR L. HAMMOND: And now they hold how much?
MUFTI: About 1,500,000 dunams: 1,200,000 dunams already registered in the name of the Jewish holders, but there are 300,000 dunams which are the subject of written agreements, and which have not yet been registered in the Land Registry. That does not, of course, include the land which was assigned, about 100,000 dunams.
SIR L. HAMMOND: What 100,000 dunams was assigned? Is that not included in, the 1,200,000 dunams? The point is this. He says that in 1920 at the time of the Occupation, the Jews only held 100,000 dunams, is that so? I asked the figures from the Land Registry, how much land the Jews owned at the time of the Occupation. Would he be surprised to hear that the figure is not 100,000 but 650,000 dunams?
MUFTI: It may be that the difference was due to the fact that many lands were bought by contract which were not registered.
SIR L. HAMMOND: There is a lot of difference between 100,000 and 650,000.
MUFTI: In one case they sold about 400,000 dunams in one lot.
SIR L. HAMMOND: Who? An Arab?
MUFTI: Sarsuk. An Arab of Beyrouth.
SIR L. HAMMOND: His Eminence gave us a picture of the Arabs being evicted from their land and villages being wiped out. What I want to know is, did the Government of Palestine, the Administration, acquire the land and then hand it over to the Jews?
MUFTI: In most cases the lands were acquired.
SIR L. HAMMOND: I mean forcibly acquired-compulsory acquisition as land would be acquired for public purposes? < MUFTI: No, it wasn’t.
SIR L. HAMMOND: Not taken by compulsory acquisition?
MUFTI: No.
SIR L. HAMMOND: But these lands amounting to some 700,000 dunams were actually sold?
MUFTI: Yes, they were sold, but the country was placed in such conditions as would facilitate such purchases.
SIR I HAMMOND: I don’t quite understand what you mean by that. They were sold. Who sold them?
MUFTI: Land owners.
SIR I HAMMOND: Arabs?
MUFTI: In most cases they were Arabs.
SIR L. HAMMOND: Was any compulsion put on them to sell? If so, by whom?
MUFTI: As in other countries, there are people who by force of circumstances, economic forces, sell their land.
SIR L. HAMMOND: Is that all he said?
MUFTI: A large part of these lands belong to absentee landlords who sold the land over the heads of their tenants, who were forcibly evicted. The majority of these landlords were absentees who sold their land over the heads of their tenants. Not Palestinians but Lebanese.
SIR L. HAMMOND: Is His Eminence in a position to give the Commission a list of the people, the Arabs who have sold lands, apart from those absentee landlords?
MUFTI: It is possible for me to supply such a list.
SIR L. HAMMOND: I ask him now this: does he think that as compared with the standard of life under the Turkish rule the position of the fellahin in the villages has improved or deteriorated?
MUFTI: Generally speaking I think their situation has got worse.
SIR L. HAMMOND: Is taxation heavier or lighter?
MUFTI: Taxation was much heavier then, but now there are additional burdens.
SIR L. HAMMOND: I am asking him if it is now, the present day, as we are sitting together here, is it a fact that the fellahin has a much lighter tax than he had under the Turkish rule? Or is he taxed more heavily?
MUFTI: The present taxation is lighter, but the Arabs nevertheless have now other taxation, for instance, customs.
LORD PEEL: And the condition of the fellahin as regards, for example, education. Are there more schools or fewer schools now?
MUFTI: They may have more schools, comparatively, but at the same time there has been an increase in their numbers.
The Hajj Amin el-Husseini, the intractable opponent of Zionism, a Jew-hater on par with Hitler, admitted under questioning that no Arab land was stolen; no Arabs were wiped out, no villages destroyed. Rather, the Jews bought hundreds of thousands of dunam (about ¼ of an acre) of land from willing sellers, often from absentee Arab landowners. Moreover, thanks in part to the Zionists and the British, the quality of life for Palestine’s Arab peasantry was vastly improved, with less taxation, more schools, and an increase in Arab population.
The next time someone spouts the Arab line about how Zionists came and stole Arab land and drove Arabs out, just quote the Mufti.
Here's betting that the people who come out to defend the 'Palestinians' on this blog will ignore this post. By the way, in
From Time Immemorial, Joan Peters quotes extensively from the Peel Commission testimony. It's no small wonder why.
Labels: Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, Peel Commission
'Palestinians' offended over AP fact check
The 'Palestinians' are
offended that al-AP actually had the audacity to check some of the facts in Abu Mazen's UN General Assembly speech.
However, the Associated Press has decided not only to provide news but also its own opinions and terminology, thus misrepresenting its own reported news and adopting the discourse of one of the parties to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; that of the occupier. We the Palestinians have been greatly disappointed about AP regarding several news reports, including their last “fact check” or opinion piece on the historic speech delivered by president Mahmoud Abbas at the United Nations.
It is greatly unfair and undemocratic for AP in its capacity as a news agency to distribute its commentaries, ideas, and erroneous fact checks, while it refuses to allow rebuttal through the same channel. Respectable news agencies in a democratic and transparent mode of behavior are accountable to the public. They cannot be beyond accountability. If they misquote, disseminate erroneous news, or editorialize, they must allow correction, apologies, and provision of equal space for rebuttal.
And what did the AP find and say that so offended the 'Palestinians'?
The Associated Press opinion piece questioned the historic speech of President Abbas. We believe that the so-called fact checks raised by AP are mostly ideological and not factual. AP adopts the Israeli language, and misinterpretation of facts. Some of the responses to President Abbas' speech were:
-- In response to “we are the last people living under occupation”, AP says “The world is full of ethnic minorities that might claim to be ruled by occupiers, ranging from Tibetans living under Chinese rule, to Kurds in Turkey, Basques in Spain, Chechens in Russia and Muslim separatists in Indian-ruled Kashmir.”
Our case cannot be compared to any of those (honoring the legitimacy that every people have). We are not an “ethnic minority” aiming to separate from a bigger country that we have been part of for centuries. We are the indigenous population of this land that has been colonized by illegal foreign occupiers. In 1917, we were colonized by Britain, which helped deliver 78 percent of our land to the Israelis in 1948, who in 1967 occupied the rest of our country i.e. the West Bank and Gaza. It is not up to a news agency to decide who we are; the world has already accepted the fact that we have been living under colonial rule for the past decades.[No they're not an ethnic minority, but they're not indigenous either. CiJ].
-- In response to a reference of Palestinian prisoners being prisoners of conscience and struggle for freedom, AP says “Abbas did not mention that most Palestinian prisoners are being held because of alleged involvement in violence against Israelis. Israel's prison service says it's holding some 6,000 "security" prisoners, many of them involved in planning or carrying out deadly attacks on civilians.”
With this response, AP has officially recognized the legitimacy of Israeli military tribunals over Palestinian civilians. International law is clear, civilian prisoners deserve a fair trial that cannot be guaranteed by the State of Israel, the occupying power. Military prisoners should be treated as prisoners of war, under the Geneva conventions. AP omits that since the Israeli occupation began in 1967, almost 900,000 Palestinians have been detained by Israeli forces. One wonders if you think that the majority has been involved in what Israel calls "security" offenses. Under Israeli military laws, the Israeli army can detain any Palestinian without any justification. Thousands were imprisoned under "administrative detention" regulations requiring no declared pretext, or legal reasons. AP accepted unquestionably the Israeli claim. [So is a 'Palestinian' suicide bomber in civilians clothes military or civilian? And who is responsible for blurring the distinction? CiJ]
-- AP criticized President Abbas for not stating the ties of the Jewish religion with the Holy Land.
This statement is purely ideological. President Abbas was representing the rights of his people. Palestine shows great respect for all peoples and religions that have passed though Palestine, including Assyrians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans. [But not Jews who have had a continuous presence in what he calls 'Palestine' for 3,000 years. CiJ].
To blame President Abbas for not explicitly stating the Jewish connection with the Holy Land is for AP to officially adopt the Israeli position and to impose it on its readers. [No news agency can impose anything on its readers. You are always free to question, although in the 'Palestinian Authority' and in most other Arab and Muslim countries, you may not, or you may be restricted in doing so openly. CiJ] President Abbas did not say that Palestine is exclusively for the followers of Christianity or Islam, whereas Mr Netanyahu wants Israel to be exclusively for the Jews, thus jeopardizing the rights and future of 1.5 million citizens, comprising 22 percent of the population of Israel, all of whom are indigenous native Christian and Muslim citizens and not settlers imposed by the force of military occupation on their land. [No, they are not indigenous. If anything, the Jewish claim to the land goes back far before any Christian or Muslim claim - or even existence. And by the way, why does Israel have to accept Arab citizens - which it said it would do - if the 'Palestinians' insist that 'Palestine' be Judenrein. CiJ]
-- In response to the reference made regarding the Gaza Strip and President Abbas' condemnation of Israel for committing war crimes against the civilian population of Gaza, AP considers that Hamas' actions ends Gaza's relationship with Palestine, giving Israel the right to kill 1,400 of its civilians, injuring 50,000, many with phosphorus bombs, and destroying 20 percent of its homes. [Huh? And by the way, about 1,100 of those killed were proven to be Hamas militia. If you think that 300 civilian casualties (at most) out of 1,400 is a high percentage, check those statistics against US-caused civilians deaths in Iraq or NATO-caused civilian deaths in Bosnia, among others. CiJ] AP disqualifies President Abbas from condemning the Israeli actions deemed as war crimes by the UN, and its investigating committee led by Richard Goldstone. [Except that Goldstone recanted.... CiJ]
-- AP says that “The Palestinians did not accept two Israeli peace offers, in 2000 and 2008, that offered them a state in the vast majority of the territories they claim. Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has repeatedly offered to launch negotiations -- but refused to accept minimum outlines of a peace deal endorsed by the Palestinians and the international community. He has also not met the Palestinian condition of a settlement freeze for the duration of the talks.”
AP once again has adopted the official Israeli line of blaming the Palestinian side for not accepting to sign these Israeli "peace offers" requiring the Palestinians to accept a state without international borders, no control over air space, electromagnetic sphere, natural resources nor access to our capital Jerusalem as well as no solution to the Palestinian refugee issue. AP fails to mention the countless Palestinian attempts to have meaningful negotiations, the Palestinian Peace Proposal of 1988, the Arab Peace Plan of 2002, and all the other proposals made by the Palestinian side. Regarding the 2008 offer, we point out that AP failed to mention that Mr Olmert, the former Israeli prime minister, refused to continue the negotiations because of his war on Gaza and later on for his Israeli legal problems. When Mr Netanyahu spent 19 hours negotiating with President Abbas during the month of September, 2010 shuttling between Washington, Sharm el-Sheikh and Jerusalem, he refused to negotiate any of the major six core points, which outline all our joint negotiating effort, insisting that he had no mandate to do so until President Abbas accepts his two preconditions:
1. Accepting the exclusive Jewish character of Israel and
2. Accepting Netanyahu's defense doctrine of maintaining indefinitely the Israeli occupation of the Jordan Valley, and territories 10 kilometers deep into the western borders of the West Bank.[Please.... When I searched 'Palestinian peace proposal of 1988, the first result I found was this. And as to the Saudi plan, it basically says, "give us all the land, let us flood what's left with 'refugees' and then we'll talk." Some peace plan. There's never been a real 'Palestinian' peace plan and there's never been a 'Palestinian' response to an Israeli one. CiJ].
-- AP also claims that the settlement freeze is a Palestinian precondition to negotiate, while in reality it is an Israeli obligation according to the Road Map, the same way that East Jerusalem is not “disputed” but internationally recognized as occupied (another regular misrepresentation made by AP reporting). [AFTER the 'Palestinians' shut down all the terror organizations. We're still waiting on that one. CiJ]
AP’s so-called fact check continues this line of argument by stating: “Israel might argue — as Netanyahu did in his rebuttal Friday — that Arab enmity to Israel long preceded the settlement of lands occupied in 1967".
AP thus completely misrepresents the history of Palestine. The two-state solution, adopted officially by the PLO in 1988, has been the greatest step to peace. However, allowing Israel to continue its colonial settlement project in the occupied Palestinian territory is illegal, unfair, and makes the two-state solution impossible to implement. President Mahmoud Abbas was also clear that the injustice against the Palestinian people began with our exile in 1948 rather than only with the 1967 occupation. The catastrophe of the 1948 Nakba and forced transfer of our refugees has been unveiled by Israel's own prominent historians such as Benny Morris, and recognized by the Israeli negotiating paper on refugees in Taba, 2001. We would like to ask the so called "fact-checkers" how this Netanyahu false interpretation of history makes settlements legal, and its continuation acceptable, despite international rulings, and the Road Map. [He's changing the subject. Hebron 1929. The 1936-38 riots. The Peel Commission. Let's just revise history. CiJ]
Last but not least, AP omits to say that Israel is the only country in the United Nations whose acceptance as a member was conditional to the respect of two UN resolutions: 181 (two states) and 194 (right to return). Israel has not implemented any of these requirements. [Three no's of Khartoum anyone? In any event, they weren't requirements and Israel was accepted to the UN by the General Assembly (Resolution 273 (III)) and the Security Council (Resolution 69) and not by 181 or 194. CiJ].
Sorry not many links in this one. If you put in the comments that you want to see them, I will try to find them, but all of these things have been discussed here before. Click the labels.
Labels: 1929 Hebron massacre, 1947 partition plan, fourteen reservations, Peel Commission, Three no's of Khartoum, UN General Assembly Resolution 273(III), UN Security Council Resolution 69
Maan rewrites history
Sometimes the Arabs are so good at lying that they can no longer tell the difference between lies and the truth. Take, for example,
this piece by Ali Halimeh, the 'Palestinian ambassador' to South Africa in Maan (Hat Tip:
Eliana).
The two-state solution on the land of Palestine was the first international initiative to end the Arab-Zionist conflict, by voting in the General Assembly of the United Nations on the partition resolution No. 181, on 29 November 1947, without consulting or even notifying the Palestinians or the Arab world.
This led the international community to announce, a few months later, the establishment of Israel in May 1948. This gave Israel the right of statehood through full membership of international organizations, especially the United Nations, leaving the Palestinian people looking for their own state ever since.
Forget for a minute that the 1947 partition plan was not the 'first international initiative' to end the 'Arab-Zionist conflict.' Halimeh never heard of the
Peel Commission, for example. But the idea that the 'Palestinians' (a name that then was used for the Jews!) or the Arab world were not consulted or notified of Resolution 181 is comical. And the way he glosses over how Israel became a member of the United Nations (no, it wasn't because of Resolution 181) is a total lie. Here's
what really happened.
We've all heard the famous tape of the roll being called at the UN with the US and the Russians both voting yes while the Jew-hating Brits (not my British readers - the British government) vote no. Isn't that what gave the UN stamp of approval to the Jewish state?
No, it's not. And if you look below Marzouk's bunch of lies, you'll find a piece by John Bolton (at the same URL) that decimates the General Assembly argument. Some, however, argue that there is precedent, citing General Assembly Resolution 181 of 1947, which endorsed a plan to partition the former British League of Nations mandate into Jewish and Arab states, and a "special international regime" for Jerusalem. They should read what the resolution actually says. Like all assembly resolutions, it is not legally binding. It simply "recommends" the partition plan in question, and "requests that the Security Council take the necessary measures" to implement it. The council never adopted the plan. Although the Jewish leadership accepted it, the Arabs did not, and a multi-front Arab assault followed. End of precedent.
On March 4, 1949, the Security Council adopted Resolution 69, recommending that Israel be admitted to the United Nations, by a vote of 9-1 (Egypt) with 1 abstention (the Brits). And on May 11, 1949, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 273(III), voting 37-12 with 9 abstentions to accept the Security Council recommendation and admit Israel as a member.
Yes, Israel was admitted to the UN just like everyone else, and not the way the 'Palestinians' are proposing to be admitted.
Halimeh is telling a lie in a bid to rewrite the manner in which nations are admitted to the United Nations. This sort of revisionist history needs to be stopped at every turn.
Labels: 1947 partition plan, Peel Commission, UN General Assembly Resolution 181, UN General Assembly Resolution 273(III), UN Security Council Resolution 69
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.'
