Powered by WebAds

Monday, November 28, 2011

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?


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.


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: ,


At 10:27 PM, Blogger Sunlight said...

Another link to put into the title search GIS system!

At 4:49 PM, Blogger Antonio Caracciolo said...

Dal Blog di Beppe Grillo:
Questi commenti sono così numerosi che temo ognuno di essi cada nell’irrilevanza. Questo è il secondo che scrivo e forse anche l’ultimo. Mi auguro che lo legga anche Ovadia e che tragga le conclusioni che non ho lo spazio per illustrare. Riporto in toto una tabella che prendo dal catalogo della mostra alla Brunei Gallery di Londra: “Britain in Palestine. The Story of British Rule in Palestine 1917-48 (by Karl Sabbagh). Tabella: Population groups in Palestine, 1860 to 1915. - Nel 1860-61 vi erano in Palestina 325.000 musulmani, 31.000 cristiani, che insieme fanno 356.000 arabi, a cui si aggiungono 13.000 ebrei AUTOCTONI pari al 3,5% della popolazione complessiva di 369.000 abitanti della Palestina negli anni 1860-61. La tabella riporta i dati successivi per gli anni: 1882-83; 1895-96; 1905-6; 1914-15. Per stare nello spazio salto i dati intermedi e riporto solo quelli del 1914-15, che sono di 602.337 musulmani, 81.012 cristiani, che insieme fanno 683.349 arabi palestinesi, a fronte di un numero di 38.349 ebrei, parte autoctoni e parte immigrati sotto il governo ottomano, pari al 5.4 % della popolazione complessiva di 722.103 abitanti della Palestina negli anni 1914-15. Sotto il mandato britannico sarà favorita al massimo l’immigrazione ebraica, al punto da provocare la rivolta araba del 1936-39. L’obiettivo del sionismo è sempre stato quello di divenire maggioranza in Palestina. Questo obiettivo sarà però raggiunto solo con la grande pulizia etnica del 1948, che espelle 750.000 palestinesi e distrugge metà dei loro villaggi: di uno di essi si è occupato Grillo in un video You Tube, che ha scatenato una campagna di diffamazione contro di lui... Salto e salto. Ma a questo punto, quando si sente dire "diritto di Israele alla sua esistenza”, che vuol dire? Che si deve riconoscere il suo diritto alla "pulizia etnica”, equivalente al "genocidio” della popolazione palestinese che risulta dalla tabella data?
Questa storia del mufti è davvero stucchevole, anche se molto sfruttata dalla propaganda israeliana. Se proprio vi interessano i rapporti con il nazismo, dovreste per prima cosa studiare le relazioni del sionismo stesso con il nazismo. Quanto alla Soluzione Finale, di cui il muftì sarebbe stato complice, potete spiegare perché in Germania e altrove debbano finire in galera tutti quelli che con i metodi della ricerca storica vogliono indagarvi? Succede anche in Israele che gli storici "revisionisti” vadano in galera? O il problema non esiste semplicemente perché questi storici non esistono? Per il mufti il problema è semplice. Dopo la repressione della rivolta araba del 1936-39, il mufti fu costretto all’esilio e da chi doveva andare per cercare alleanze? Dagli inglesi che avevano distrutto tutta la classe dirigente palestinese di cui il popolo palestinese aveva grande bisogno durante la pulizia etnica del 1948, narrato dal vostro concittadino Pappe, che per minacce ricevute avete costretto all’esilio? Questo modulo del mufti può trovare credito e circolazione solo dentro le vostre stesse fila, ma all’esteno non inganna nessuno. Dalla tabella sopra data risulta con evidenza matematica che il progetto sionista di genocidio del popolo palestinese è di gran lunga precedente non solo il nazismo (1933-45), ma la nascita stessa di Hitler...

At 5:19 PM, Blogger Antonio Caracciolo said...

Vorrei aggiungere, sapendo di rivolgermi a "nemici” che più nemici non si può, che io ho già sentito altre volte l’argomento: le terre sono state comprate, perfino a "caro prezzo”. L’argomento per me non è valido né sul merito tecnico-giuridico della compravendita di diritto privato/pubblico, né soprattutto sul piano dei principi: vogliono forse gli ebrei comprare l’onore delle nostre madri, figlie, spose? Pretendono di aver comprato la "patria” atavica dei palestinesi? Ripeto: so di rivolgermi a NEMICI, ma io resto un "cristiano” ritenendo che si possa e debba parlare a tutti, incominciando proprio dai nemici.

At 10:29 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

This comment has been removed by the author.


Post a Comment

<< Home