Part 1 - Palestinian Arab racism against Jews in the first half of the 20th c.

Part 1 - Palestinian Arab racism against Jews in the first half of the 20th c.

Understanding the Palestinian Movement

An HIR Series, in four parts
Historical and Investigative Research - 22 April 2006
by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov.htm
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 
__________________________________________________________

Introduction

In 1929 there were Arab terrorist riots in British Mandate Palestine against the civilian Jewish population that lived there.

“The [1929] riots were accompanied by militant Arab slogans such as... ‘Palestine is our land and the Jews our dogs...’ [and] brutal acts by Arabs...such as the killings in Hebron, where small children were tortured by their murderers before being murdered. ...the Jewish community in Palestine found itself caught up in a wave of violent disturbances that swept with a fury through Jewish settlements and neighborhoods throughout the length and breadth of the country. The danger now appeared to threaten the very survival of the entire Jewish community.”[1]

This was not the first mass racist attack by Arabs against unarmed civilian Jews in British Mandate ‘Palestine,’ nor would it be the last attempted extermination.

Historian Anita Shapira, above, writes in a way that suggests compassion for the Jewish victims of Arab racism. She is considered to be a Zionist. For a different portrayal, let us turn to Zionism: False Messiah, by historian Nathan Weinstock, who agrees with Shapira on the most important facts but not on the interpretation:

“...the Palestinian anti-colonialist movement was deformed by racism. The distorted national struggle expressed itself in anti-Jewish slogans (‘Palestine is our country and the Jews are our dogs’), followed up by attacks upon Jewish passers-by and store-owners, and eventually in mob violence akin to the all-too familiar pogrom [ = unprovoked racist attack against unarmed Jews, with the semi-unofficial assistance of the (in this case British) authorities[1a]]. These attacks cannot, however, in any way be assimilated to straightforward anti-Semitic outrages which had their source in classical European coordinates of the Jewish problem, but should be seen as a deformed expression of national consciousness, all the more understandable as the Zionist leaders clearly allied with the British while the latter encouraged this distraction from the anti-imperialist struggle.”[2]

Notice first that the anti-Zionist historian -- Weinstock -- agrees that Arab mobs attacked civilian Jews in British Mandate ‘Palestine,’ and that these mobs were racist. Weinstock, like Shapira, quotes the slogan that the Arab rioters chanted in the streets: “Palestine is our country and the Jews are our dogs.” These are important points of agreement. The difference is that Shapira goes out of her way to stress the genocidal intent of the Arab attackers: “The danger now appeared to threaten the very survival of the entire Jewish community”; whereas Weinstock instead loudly forbids any comparison between the Arabs who tried but failed to exterminate the local Jews, and the Europeans who tried and succeeded: “These [Arab] attacks cannot...in any way be assimilated to straightforward anti-Semitic outrages which had their source in classical European coordinates of the Jewish problem.” It's a strong statement. But if genocidal Arab racism against the Jews is not, as in Europe, “straightforward[ly] anti-Semitic,” then what is it? According to Weinstock, it is a consequence of Arab “national consciousness.”

Now this is a curious argument.

“National consciousness” happens when a sizable portion of a population believes itself to be a nation, which connotes attachment to a specific land and (usually) a distinctive language. What would be the basis for belief in the Palestinian Arab nation? The so-called ‘palestinian’ Arabs do not speak palestinian, and, as Weinstock awkwardly admits elsewhere in the same book, there was no such place as ‘Palestine’ until the British colonialists -- infidel foreigners -- imperially defined Middle Eastern boundaries after WWI, giving the name ‘Palestine’ first arbitrarily to one territory, then arbitrarily to another (see Part 2).

Consider, further, what Weinstock has recently conceded in a different book:

“Though it may seem paradoxical to affirm it, this is nevertheless true: Palestine did not exist in the 19th century. …Definitely, the territory of the [British] Palestine Mandate corresponded to [Ottoman] Mediterranean Syria and its inhabitants considered themselves as being part of Syria in the larger sense (bilad al-Sham). ...[but] this affirmation does not mean to invalidate Palestinian nationalism.”[2a]

It doesn’t? Well then we must agree with Weinstock: what he presents is indeed a paradox: a Palestinian national identity without Palestine! But how can Weinstock so breezily deny that this brutal contradiction invalidates his argument for a genuine “Palestinian [Arab] nationalism”? We shall see a way out of this riddle if we pay close attention to Weinstock’s argument.

Though it was the British who had just invented ‘Palestine’ (and more than once, and with different boundaries!), and though its Arab inhabitants had been thinking of themselves as Syrians, they nevertheless had a Palestinian Arab “national consciousness,” says Weinstock, because they had been awakened through an “anti-imperialist struggle” against the British. Weinstock calls this struggle the “Palestinian anti-colonialist movement.” And yet, curiously, he confesses that this “anti-imperialist struggle” of the “Palestinian anti-colonialist movement” did not result in violence against the British imperialists and colonialistas but in wave after wave of terrorist violence against the old and new Jewish inhabitants of the area. How to explain that? Well, Weinstock claims that the “Palestinian anti-colonialist movement” had been “deformed by [anti-Jewish] racism.” But this is “understandable,” he rushes to add, because “Zionist leaders clearly allied with the British.” For someone like myself it is hard to escape the impression that Weinstock has twisted logic in twenty different ways in order to suggest that the Jews deserved what they got. And yet, despite his claims of a British-Zionist alliance against the Arabs, he concedes that the British in fact “encouraged” Arab murders of innocent Jews, including torture to death of small children. Weinstock would appear to have refuted himself.

Could this mean that he is wrong?

According to Weinstock, the British “encouraged” Arab mob violence against the Jews as a “distraction from the anti-imperialist struggle.” But the British Liuetenant Colonel John Patterson, an eye-witness in the early 20th c. to Arab violence against Jews in British Mandate ‘Palestine,’ presented a different hypothesis. In Patterson's view, his own British superiors were inciting the Arabs against the Jews in order to tell the world that, due to local resistance to the creation of a Jewish homeland in ‘Palestine,’ the entire Zionist project had to be abandoned (see footnote 1a for Patterson's account). The British no longer thought that a Jewish homeland in the Middle East was in their interests, and they were trying to sabotage it. I like this second hypothesis better because what everybody agrees happened is that the British imperialists were helping Arabs kill Jews, and that doesn’t sit well with Weinstock’s interpretation that there was a Zionist-British alliance against the Arabs.

As it turns out, Weinstock’s curious representation of the conflict between Arabs and Jews in British Mandate ‘Palestine’ is consistent with the current representation of the Arab-Israeli conflict. We all know that the Arab enemies of the Jews turn their own children into bombs in order to kill Jewish men, women, and children. If people were doing this in the streets of the United States or Britain they would be institutionalized, whether in a mental facility or in a jail, if not killed. But since this violence is directed against Israeli Jews, we are asked instead to see it as an “understandable” consequence of a ‘Palestinian’ “national consciousness.”

I am not exaggerating. Just the other day, on 17 Monday, April 2006,

“A Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up outside a fast-food restaurant in a bustling commercial area of Tel Aviv during the Passover holiday Monday, killing eight other people and wounding at least 49, police said.”[3]

A famous Israeli pro-‘Palestinian’ organization, dominant in Israel’s so-called ‘peace’ movement, Gush Shalom, immediately sent out an email to its list saying the following:

“Sure, we are horrified by the senseless random killing. But we have also something to say about why it happened, how it might have been prevented, how the next one can still be prevented. But how to say it on this day and in that location? How to make comprehensible, to shocked and angry and traumatized [Jewish] people, that the occupation is the root cause of our suffering as well as the Palestinians’? How to explain convincingly that we must dry at source the oppression which makes young Palestinians don explosive belts and throw away their lives together with those of others?”[4]

In other words, Gush Shalom is asking this: How can we explain to the Israeli Jews that a child in her stroller deserved to be torn to pieces because she is the spawn of a colonialist power that dispossesses and oppresses a third-world people? How can we get Israelis to agree with the Orwellian logic of the above paragraph, where “senseless random killing” = justified political act? Since the threshold for endorsing violence against Jews is low anyways, it appears that Nathan Weinstock has already provided the answer: the trick is to insist that Arab antisemitism is an “understandable” reaction to supposed Jewish colonialism, as opposed to just plain racism. And the better to allege that this is Arab “national consciousness” (as opposed to just plain racism), we will outlaw any comparison between Arab Muslim attitudes and those European attitudes that produced the Nazi Final Solution against the European Jews. Says Weinstock:

“These [Arab] attacks cannot...in any way be assimilated to straightforward anti-Semitic outrages which had their source in classical European coordinates of the Jewish problem.”

Historical and Investigative Research is a website built on the premise that, in order to get a grip on the present, one must learn some history. Thus, in order better to understand the ‘Palestinian movement,’ and the better to judge whether the current representation of the violence perpetrated by West Bank and Gaza Arabs against Israeli Jews is a fair representation, I propose to examine the following four questions (you may hyperlink below):

1		Was Arab anti-Jewish racism in the first half of the 20th c. fundamentally different from the European variety?
2		Was there, in British Mandate ‘Palestine,’ a ‘nationally conscious’ ‘Palestinian Arab people’?
3		Did the Zionist Jews take something away from the Arabs in British Mandate 'Palestine'?
4		How did the so-called ‘Palestinian movement’ emerge? Who put it together? Who sponsored it?

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
1		Was Arab anti-Jewish racism in the
		first half of the 20th c. fundamentally
		different from the European variety?
_________________________________________________________

Let us begin with this: We learn above that Arab mobs chanted “the Jews are our dogs” as they murdered unarmed Jewish civilians during an attempted extermination of the Jews in British Mandate 'Palestine' in 1929. What does this suggest? That these Arabs perceived the status of Jews to be vastly inferior to their own. This ought to be surprising to anybody who accepts historian Nathan Weinstock’s interpretation that “the Zionist leaders clearly allied with the British,” and that the Arabs were fighting an “anti-imperialist struggle.” After all, Arabs chanting “the Jews are our dogs” hardly conveys that the Arabs perceived the Jews as imperial overlords or proxy overlords. What it conveys, rather, is that the Arabs thought of the Jews as their slaves.

Which view is correct?

This question can be answered by looking at how Arabs and Jews lived in mid-19th century ‘Palestine,’ before the Zionist migrations began, when ‘Palestine’ was ruled not by the British Empire but by the Muslim Ottoman Turkish Empire (a period nowhere discussed in Nathan Weinstock’s book). For a description of Muslim, Jewish, and Christian relations at that time and place, I turn to historian Arnold Blumberg’s Zion before Zionism, which book, as he explains, “closes in 1880 because it is the last year before the great Jewish immigration began” (p.x).

[Quote from historian Arnold Blumberg begins here]

“Moslems, whether Turkish or Arab, were united in a determination to preserve the Islamic character of society, especially in cities where Christians or Jews constituted large pluralities or majorities.

Under Koranic law, Jews and Christians were regarded as ‘peoples of the book’ who had received authentic divine revelation, but who had perversely rejected the ultimate revelation given to humanity through Mohammed the Prophet. Infidels of that description were assured of toleration if they accepted inferior status and paid a special head tax in lieu of military service. Since Islam idealizes the soldier as a propagator of the faith, anyone denied a soldier’s career was necessarily humbled. Known as Ahl Ud-Dimma or the ‘people of protection,’ they had an assured niche in society, but labored under severe restrictions. No church or synagogue could have windows which looked down upon Muslim religious property. No church bells could be rung, nor could Christian religious processions bear the crucifix or other Christian symbols through the public streets. At religious shrines sacred to two or more of the monotheistic faiths, priority was given invariably to Moslem needs. A mosque had been erected over the burial cave containing the remains of the biblical patriarchs and matriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Rebecca, and Leah. Jews were permitted to climb only the first seven steps of the mosque leading to the shrine and suffered varying degrees of harassment even while submitting to that humiliating limitation. Jews praying at the western wall at the Temple Mount, Judaism’s holiest shrine, were prohibited from sounding the ram’s horn or making any other noise which might offend Moslems. Jews could not erect a mechitza or barrier separating male and female worshippers at that wall, lest it be construed as a recognition of their right to build a true synagogue there. Moslems freely threw garbage upon the heads of Jewish worshippers from the Temple Mount without interference by the authorities. Only Moslems could climb the Temple Mount. Black Sudanese tribesmen enforced the exclusion of infidel trespassers...

No new church or synagogue could be erected without a specific firman from the sultan, though old houses of worship could be repaired. Thus all sorts of subterfuge became the normal means whereby new non-Moslem houses of prayer were erected. In Jerusalem, for example, four separate synagogues pursued separate careers within the same four walls because the three newer ones had been built as mere ‘enlargements’ of the oldest congregation.

The purchase of property by foreign non-Moslems also required a special imperial firman. Since there was no Turkish land registry law until 1858, each rare approval of land purchase by foreign Christians or Jews also required ratification by the local pasha. Both Christian and Jewish individuals and institutions were constantly engaged in litigation, attempting to prove legitimate inheritance of ancient land deeds.

The Turks, for their part, assumed an attitude of amused contempt as they surveyed the squabbling of the rayah or non-Moslem communities. They could afford to do so. Even in the walled cities containing Christian or Jewish majorities, virtually all property was in the hands of Moslem landlords who leased it on a long-term basis to tenants who were born, lived and died there with no expectation that they would own land.”[5]

[Quote from historian Arnold Blumberg ends here]

The full list above is instructive but I want you to stay with this image: the landless, property-less Jewish worshippers climbing just the allowed few steps at the Temple Mount, accosted with flying garbage by gleeful Arabs who taunt them as the Turkish authorities smile with “amused contempt.” This was going on in the mid-19th century. Thus, Arabs torturing small Jewish children to death and chanting “the Jews are our dogs” in 1929 makes perfect sense: the Arabs and other Muslims in ‘Palestine’ regarded the Jews as something less than fully human, and treated them accordingly.

But hatred and contempt for Jews way back in mid-19th century ‘Palestine’ can have absolutely nothing to do with an Arab “expression of national consciousness,” because even Weinstock does not claim that there was any such consciousness then. And neither could it be a reaction to a supposed alliance between Zionist Jews and British colonialists, because at the time there weren’t yet any Zionist Jews or British colonialists. The place was ruled by the Ottoman Turks, and Zionism hadn't begun. Rather, this was an expression of how Jews and Christians were treated all over the Muslim world -- it was hardly a phenomenon unique to the Arab, Turkish, and African Muslims in ‘Palestine.’

This is worth a short discussion.

Arnold Blumberg says above two things that are intimately related: he notes that “Islam idealizes the soldier as a propagator of the faith,” and he refers to Christians and Jews among Muslims as Ahl Ud-Dimma or the “people of protection.” What is the connection between the two? It is like this: the soldier “propagators of the faith” were the ones producing dhimmis or “people of protection.”

Consider the following quotation from the Qur’an:

“Oh Prophet, incite the believers to combat. If there can be found among you twenty who will endure, they will vanquish two hundred, if one hundred can be found, they will vanquish a thousand infidels, because they are people such as cannot understand.”

This Quranic passage is quoted in The Islamic Manifesto, a work by the famous Bosnian Muslim author Alija Izetbegovic (a favorite of NATO and the Western press, which lionized him as a great ‘moderate’).[6] Izetbegovic apparently considers any interpretation here unnecessary, because he produces the Quranic quotation entirely without comment or adornment in a section entitled “The Relations Of The Islamic Society With Other Societies” (the entire section consists of similarly chilling Quranic quotations, likewise without comment or adornment).

So, the “propagators of the faith” will piously kill “infidels,” which is to say people who “cannot understand” that they are supposed to become Muslims. This sort of thing will indeed tend to propagate the faith because many people become willing Muslims when confronted by a victorious Muslim army. And as historians have been telling us, this is precisely how this faith did propagate across the world: before the raised curve of a scimitar blade, those refusing Islam were either killed on the spot or enslaved.

But with the Christians and Jews the Muslims made an exception: if they agreed to become semi-slaves to the Muslims, they would be allowed to live as infidels. Should the Muslims ever think that Christians or Jews were becoming uppity, however, jihad (Holy War) would resume, and then Christians and Jews could once again be slaughtered with impunity. So this is why Christians and Jews were “people of protection”: the Muslims ‘protected’ Christians and Jews from slaughter at the hands of the same Muslims.

(An obvious parallel: gangsters who extort money from their innocent victims at the point of a gun, because the alternative is death, call the income they make ‘protection money,’ and what they do is referred to as a ‘protection racket.’)

It is true that there have been periods of relatively increased tolerance for dhimmis in certain times and places in the Muslim world -- times when things weren’t as bad for dhimmis as they could have been. But the current propaganda about the supposedly traditional tolerance for Christians and Jews in Muslim societies because they are People of the Book and therefore -- you will hear this -- “protected people” is... propaganda.

Historian Bat Ye’or is an authority on the stipulations of the dhimma and what she calls the Christian and Jewish condition of dhimmitude in the Muslim world. She explains that the Muslims got some of their ideas, and the legal framework, for how to treat dhimmis from Christian ideas about how to treat Jews, when they overran the Eastern or ‘Byzantine’ Roman Empire with its capital in Constantinople or ‘Byzantium’ (now Istanbul), and adopted much of what was there.

“On the level of civil rights the Muslim authority adopted the full range of anti-Jewish laws stipulated in the codes of the Byzantine emperors Theodosius II (5th century) and Justinian (6th century). From the 8th century, Muslim jurisconsults reinterpreted these laws within an Islamic conception and imposed them on both Jews and Christians. These anti-Jewish laws adopted in Islamic jurisprudence, and often harshened, were considered an expression of the divine will. They conferred on dhimmitude an immutable juridical structure that generated humiliations, debasement, and extreme vulnerability. Together with the aforementioned military factors this led to the reduction or -- in some places -- total disappearance of Jewish and, even more so, of Christian communities. After the order banishing Jews and Christians from the Hijaz in 640, Christianity was totally eliminated from Arabia, while Judaism survived in Yemen under the most precarious conditions.”[7](emphasis mine)

So we learn not merely that European Christian and Arab Muslim antisemitism are, as cultural phenomena, very much the same kind of thing, but that the very lawsmaking up the dhimma in the Muslim world were in fact borrowed from the laws oppressing Jews in the Christian state known as the Roman Empire East, with its capital in Constantinople, now Istanbul. This is the very city from which the Muslim Ottoman Turks ruled Arabs and Jews in 19th century ‘Palestine.’

And where did the Roman Empire East get its ideas about how to treat Jews? From the Roman Empire West: from Augustine.

The man Christians remember as Saint Augustine, who would be the most influential of all Christian minds -- in matters of the faith -- for centuries to come, is who promulgated in Rome, in the 5th century, the policy toward the Jews. The relevant passage is from his City of God:

“...the Jews who killed him and refused to believe in him [Jesus], to believe that he had to die and rise again, suffered a more wretched devastation at the hands of the Romans, and were utterly uprooted from their kingdom, where they had already been under the dominion of foreigners. They were dispersed all over the world -- for indeed there is no part of the earth where they are not to be found -- and thus by evidence of their own Scriptures they bear witness for us that we have not fabricated the prophecies about Christ.” [8]

How did Augustine defend Christians from the charge that they had “fabricated the prophecies about Christ”? As follows: Augustine said it was because ‘the Jews’ supposedly murdered Jesus (a false accusation, since it was the Romans who murdered Jesus), and because they did not accept Christian claims about Jesus, that the Jews had been devastated by the Romans in a frightful genocide carried out over the course of the first and second centuries, which indeed produced a great scattering of those Jews who were not killed, though a great Diaspora existed already (to read about this ancient outrage, consult the footnote).[8a] According to Augustine, the success of the anti-Jewish Roman Holocaust proved Jewish guilt, so the Christians, who accused the Jews, had to be correct.

The divine function of the Jews, as far as Augustine was concerned, was to exist in every country so they could everywhere give evidence of the truth of Christianity by preserving certain books in which Augustine believed he could discern oblique allusions to Jesus of Nazareth as the Jewish Messiah (these are the “prophecies about Christ” that Augustine insisted had not been fabricated). The Jews would also give evidence of the truth of Christianity by their lower social status because, according to Augustine, this was further punishment from God (which the Christians carried out in God’s name) for not following Jesus.

In fact Augustine gives this point special emphasis by quoting from the Book of Psalms (69.22): “bend their backs always,” a phrase that he interprets, unaccountably, as a message to future Christians from the ancient Jews concerning how they should treat their own Jewish descendants who would reject Jesus. Then he restates:

“...we find those prophecies sufficient which are produced from the books of our opponents [the Jews]; for we recognize that it is in order to give this testimony, which, in spite of themselves, they supply for our benefit by their possession and preservation of those books, that they themselves are dispersed among all nations, in whatever direction the Christian church spreads.

In fact, there is a prophecy given before the event on this point in the book of Psalms, which they [the Jews] also read. It comes in this passage, ‘As for my God, his mercy will go before me; my God has shown me this in the case of my enemies. Do not slay them, lest at some time they forget your Law,” without adding, “Scatter them.” For if they [the Jews] lived with that testimony of the Scriptures only in their own land, and not everywhere, the obvious result would be that the Church, which is everywhere, would not have them available among all nations as witnesses to the prophecies which were given beforehand concerning Christ.”[9]

Augustine, then, wanted the Jews everywhere to perform the role of useful proof of Christian theological superiority, so they were to be scattered and everywhere enslaved. But “Do not slay them!” In other words, the Jews would be “people of protection,” precisely what they also became in the Muslim world. As in the Muslim world, they were periodically slain anyway.[10]

Should we be surprised that there is such a close identity between the European and Muslim approaches to the Jews in their midst? No. The Augustinian policy was stated at the turn of the 5th century, and Muslims did not wrest Jerusalem away from Byzantium until the seventh century.[10a] Historian Bat Ye'or explains above that it was “From the 8th century, [that] Muslim jurisconsults reinterpreted these [Byzantine] laws within an Islamic conception and imposed them on both Jews and Christians.” So the Augustinian policy, which became the European policy because of the enduring influence and power of the Roman Catholic Church, also became the policy of Muslims, inherited through its specific implementation in the Eastern Roman Empire which they conquered, and whose laws they adopted. This is what explains the almost perfect identity between the traditional European and Muslim policies toward the Jews: each is an expression of Augustine.

But not only that. The links between one and the other persist strongly in the modern world as well. The top leader of the German Nazi Final Solution to the 'Jewish Problem,' the partner in everything of the better known Adolf Eichmann, was Hajj Amin al Husseini, an Arab Muslim who had already distinguished himself as the leader of a jihad against the Jews of British Mandate Palestine, including the 1929 terrorist attacks mentioned at the outset. One of these attacks, in 1936-39, had been organized with weapons supplied by Adolf Hitler.

So we have,

a) that the Arabs became quite determined to exterminate the Jews precisely when these slaves, whom they had despised for centuries, cancelled the dhimmaand triggered jihad (the killing of uppity infidels until they are all dead or re-enslaved) by insiting that they would have their own state. (That the Arabs are reacting with offense to the impudence of slaves is obvious from how the King of Saudi Arabia has defined jihad in modern times: as the destruction of the State of Israel.[11])

We also have that,

b) the Europeans, after despising the Jews as slaves for centuries, exterminated them right as the Jews got to talking about a ‘modern world’ and even began carrying themselves like full citizens, excelling at everything.[12]

Finally,

c) that the jihad in Palestine and the German Nazi Final Solution assisted each other, and were both led by the same Arab Muslim: Hajj Amín al Husseini

Such commonality of response and action suggests commonality of ideological source, and sure enough both sets of attitudes toward the Jews in fact derive ultimately from the same ancient Roman authority, the very same “classical European coordinates of the Jewish problem”: Augustine. And yet Nathan Weinstock says the following about the genocidal anti-Jewish racism of Muslims in early 20th century ‘Palestine’:

“These attacks cannot...in any way be assimilated to straightforward anti-Semitic outrages which had their source in classical European coordinates of the Jewish problem.”

Did he go out on a limb?

“Pay no attention to the man behind that curtain!,” as they say in Oz (where historians who defend the so-called ‘Palestinian movement’ must be getting their degrees).

The next piece in this series is:

“Was there, in British Mandate Palestine, a ‘nationally conscious’ ‘Palestinian Arab people’?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 30 April 2006; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov2.htm

__________________________________________________________

Footnotes and Further Reading
__________________________________________________________

[1] Shapira, A. 1992. Land and power. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, (p.174)

[1a] This footnote contains discussion of two pogroms. The first took place inside the Russian Empire, where the word 'pogrom' originates, in the town of Kishinev [Kih-shee-nuh-yev], in 1903, and the events are related by historian Amos Elon. The second took place in British Mandate Palestine, and the events are related by Kenneth Levin (who quotes at length the writings of eye-witness Lieutenant Colonel John Patterson).

KISHINEV:

"On April 19 an outrage occurred in the small Bessarabian town of Kishinev, which, in less than 48 hours, left 45 local Jews lying dead, and nearly 600 wounded; 1,500 shops and homes were pillaged or destroyed. The church bells were ringing on Easter Sunday, when a wild mob, undoubtedly acting on a given signal, rushed through the narrow streets killing Jews and setting fire to their homes and stores. In the past few decades Kishiniev's Christian population of some 60,000 had lived peacefully alongside 50,000 Jewish artisans and small shopkeepers. The only newspaper in the town was a sensational anti-Semitic journal, theBessarabitz, subsidized by the czarist Ministry of the Interior from a special slush fund. In recent months the Bessarabitz had waged a vicious campaign against the Jews of Kishinev, accusing them of ritual murder of Christian babies and of sponsoring, at the same time, both socialist revolution and the capitalist exploitation of Christians.

The police made no attempt to interfere in the widespread killing, looting, and arson. For almost twenty-four hours, while the army was ordered by the provincial governor to remain in its barracks, the mob ran amok. Nails were driven into victim's skulls, eyes gouged out, and babies thrown from higher stories of buildings to the pavement. Men were castrated, women were raped. The local bishop drove in his carriage through the crowd, blessing it as he passed. Only on the evening of the second day did the police appear on the scene to disperse the mob. By then the devastation had been accomplished. It was generally believed that Konstantin Pobedenostsev, the Czar's close adviser and head of the Holy Synod, had inspired the outrage in order to divert popular sentiments from the social revolutionists.

Pobedenostsev's own solution of the Jewish problem was known to be three-pronged: a third would convert, a third would emigrate, and a third would die. It was widely reported that Wenzel von Plehve, the czarist Minister of the Interior, had instructed the provincial governor of Kishinev not to be overzealous in his protection of the Jews. At Kishinev the government was testing a new technique to drown the revolutionary fervor in Jewish blood. News of the pogrom was suppressed in the Russian newspapers, which merely stated that there had been a sudden outbreak provoked by the Jews."

SOURCE: Elon, A. 1975. Herzl. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston. (pp.373-374)

JERUSALEM: The following account of the 1920 anti-Jewish racist riots in Jerusalem is from Kenneth Levin:

"The British, in the [WWI] postwar years, were attempting to maintain their Middle East territories with very limited forces and were indeed concerned with minimizing local unrest. But, of course, this does not account for [British] Mandate [in 'Palestine'] officers working as agents provocateurs and stirring up anti-Jewish violence or for British authorities failing to quell Arab riots when they were fully able to do so. Nor does it explain the [British] Military Administration's preventing local Jewish units -- elements of the Jewish Battalions -- from coming to the defense of the Jews of Jerusalem. [The Jewish leader Vladimir Zeev] Jabotinsky, who tried to organize defense, was arrested by the British and sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment. He was soon released by only in the context of an amnesty extended also to the rioters. The British chose to construe the Jewish units' attempts to defend the Jews of Jerusalem as an intolerable breach of military discipline and disbanded the units.

Liuetenant Colonel John Patterson, a non-Jewish British officer who had commanded the Zion Mule Corps in Gallipolli [a Jewish force that fought with distinction on the British side during WWI], was subsequently appointed commander of the 38th Jewish Battalion and led the battalion in the [WWI] Palestine campaign [during which the British wrested control of 'Palestine' from the Ottoman Turks]. Patterson wrote extensively of the anti-Jewish depredations to which his [Jewish] troops, and the Jewish population of Palestine, were subjected by the British military’s forces in Palestine under Allenby (the Egyptian Expeditionary Force) and later by the Military Administration. These depredations emanated both from the command structure and, in the wake of evident command tolerance, from the rank and file. With regard to Arab attacks on the Jews in April, 1920, in Jerusalem, Patterson, referring to the assault as 'the Jerusalem pogrom,' noted the Military Administration's encouragement of the violence, its failure to intervene to stop it, its blocking of intervention by Jewish troops, its attempts to use the Arab assault as an excuse to curb Zionist programs, and its scapegoating of Jabotinsky.

Patterson wrote, for example, of the events of April, 1920, 'A veritable 'pogrom,' such as we have hitherto only associated with Tsarist [Czarist] Russia, took place in the Holy City of Jerusalem in April, 1920, and as this was the climax to the maladministration of the Military Authorities, I consider that the facts of the case should be made public...

'The Balfour Declaration [which gave Britain the responsibility of establishing a Jewish homeland in British Mandate 'Palestine']...was never allowed [by the Military Administration] to be officially published within the borders of Palestine; the Hebrew language was proscribed; there was open discrimination against the Jews; the Jewish Regiment was at all times kept in the background and treated as a pariah. This official attitude was interpreted by the hooligan element and interested schemers in the only possible way, viz., that the military authorities in Palestine were against the Jews and Zionism, and the conviction began to grow [within Arab circles] that any act calculated to deal a death blow to Zionist aspirations would not be unwelcome by those in authority...

'Moreover, this malign influence was sometimes strengthened by very plain speaking. The Military Governor of an important town was actually heard to declare...in the presence of British and French Officers and of Arab waiters, that in case of anti-Jewish riots in his city, he would remove the garrison and take up his position at a window, where he could watch, and laugh at, what went on!

'This amazing declaration was reported to the Acting Chief Administrator, and the Acting Chief Political Officer, but no action was taken against the Governor. Only one interpretation can be placed on such leniency.'

Patterson, as quoted in Chapter 5, wrote elsewhere of the Arab attacks, 'There can be no doubt that it was assumed in some quarters that when trouble, which had been deliberately encouraged, arose, the Home Government, embarrassed by a thousand difficulties at its doors, would agree with the wire-pullers in Palestine, and say to the Jewish people that the carrying out of the Balfour Declaration, owing to the hostility displayed by the Arabs, was outside the range of practical politics.'"

SOURCE: Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (pp.203-204)

[2] Weinstock, N. 1979. Zionism: False Messiah. London: Ink Links Ltd. (pp.166-167)

[2a] « L’affirmation parait révéler du paradoxe, mais n’en est pas moins vraie : la Palestine n'existe pas au XIXe siècle. ...En définitive, le territoire de la Palestine mandataire correspond a la Syrie méridionale et ses habitants se considèrent comme faisant partie de la Syrie au sens large (bilad al-Sham). ...[mais] cette constatation ne vise pas a déconsidérer le nationalisme palestinien... »

SOURCE : Weinstock, N. 2004. Histoire de chiens. Paris: Éditions Mille et Une Nuits (Groupe Fayard). (pp.37-38)

[3] Suicide Bomber Kills 8 in Tel Aviv, Associated Press Online, April 17, 2006 Monday, 1:50 PM GMT, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, 1050 words, By DANIEL ROBINSON, Associated Press Writer, TEL AVIV Israel

[4] Gush Shalom email, below:

Return-Path: <intl-bounces@mailman.gush-shalom.org> 
Received: from gateway03.sas.upenn.edu (gateway03.sas.upenn.edu [128.91.55.43]) 
by orion.sas.upenn.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6/SAS.05) with ESMTP id k3HNb2xG013950 
for <fjgil@cattell.psych.upenn.edu>; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:37:02 -0400 (EDT) 
Received: from mailman.gush-shalom.org (mailman.gush-shalom.org [192.115.31.4]) 
by gateway03.sas.upenn.edu (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k3HNaodt032571 
for <fjgil@cattell.psych.upenn.edu>; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:36:55 -0400 
Received: from mailman.gush-shalom.org (mailman.gush-shalom.org [127.0.0.1]) 
by mailman.gush-shalom.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k3HNSqfJ032107; 
Tue, 18 Apr 2006 02:29:50 +0300 
Received: from smtp4.actcom.co.il (smtp4.actcom.co.il [192.114.47.66]) 
by mailman.gush-shalom.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id 
k3HN9XS1023981 
for <intl@mailman.gush-shalom.org>; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 02:09:33 +0300 
Received: from ADAM (l192-117-119-201.broadband.actcom.net.il 
[192.117.119.201]) 
by smtp4.actcom.co.il (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k3HN9TZn032305 
for <intl@mailman.gush-shalom.org>; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 02:09:32 +0300 
Message-ID: <012c01c66273$fc9bfc40$c97775c0@ADAM> 
From: "Gush Shalom" <otherisr@actcom.co.il> 
To: <intl@mailman.gush-shalom.org> 
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 01:09:29 +0200 
MIME-Version: 1.0 
X-Priority: 3 
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal 
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 02:12:01 +0300 
Subject: Comment on the day of the suicide bombing 
X-BeenThere: intl@mailman.gush-shalom.org 
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 
Precedence: list 
List-Id: Gush Shalom email <intl.mailman.gush-shalom.org> 
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.gush-shalom.org/mailman/listinfo/intl>, 
<mailto:intl-request@mailman.gush-shalom.org?subject=unsubscribe> 
List-Archive: <http://mailman.gush-shalom.org/pipermail/intl> 
List-Help: <mailto:intl-request@mailman.gush-shalom.org?subject=help> 
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.gush-shalom.org/mailman/listinfo/intl>, 
<mailto:intl-request@mailman.gush-shalom.org?subject=subscribe> 
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0267063788==" 
Sender: intl-bounces@mailman.gush-shalom.org 
Errors-To: intl-bounces@mailman.gush-shalom.org 
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.353 tests=BAYES_50,HTML_10_20,HTML_MESSAGE 
X-Spam-Level: * 
X-Scanned-By-SAS: ScannedBySAS 
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 128.91.55.43 
Status:

----- Original Message -----

From: Adam Keller

Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:04 AM

Subject: Comment on the day of the suicide bombing

We had just heard about the explosion and were busy making phonecalls: "Wanted just to know you are okay. You heard about the bombing, did you?" Then we saw an email coming from overseas to the Gush Shalom mailbox, a very short one: 
"Any comment on the latest terror attack assholes?" 
As a matter of fact - yes.
One o'clock. In the noon news magazine on the radio, the commentator speaks in a rather bored way of the ongoing army raid into Nablus, words nearly identical to the reports of yesterday and of last week: "The Palestinians claim that the boy shot in central Nablus was unarmed... The soldiers assert that they had shot only at armed militants, as per orders... This is part of a continuing operation to root out terrorists in Nablus and Jenin, which is already going on for several weeks... When soldiers arrive, dozens of youngsters start throwing stones, which complicates the detention of wanted terrorists..."
Suddenly: "We interrupt this report. A large explosion just occurred at the Old Central Bus Station in Tel-Aviv. Dozens of casualties. Stand by for further details"
The Old Central Bus Station. The least fashionable part of Tel-Aviv. The lively dirty streets which are the haunt of migrant workers one jump ahead of the notorious Immigration Police and the most poor and disadvantaged among Israel's own citizens. The place where people have again and again to endure suicide bombings, too. Today, once again. 
As always, the dilemma: Should we go there, to the scene where six people have just perished and forty others wounded, a place which is just a short bus ride away and where we just a few days ago went to buy sandals? Go there, as Israelis and human beings and and peace activists - but to do what? To say what? 
Sure, we are horrified by the senseless random killing. But we have also something to say about why it happened, how it might have been prevented, how the next one can still be prevented. But how to say it on this day and in that location? How to make comprehensible, to shocked and angry and traumatized people, that the occupation is the root cause of our suffering as well as the Palestinians'? How to explain convincingly that we must dry at source the oppression which makes young Palestinians don explosive belts and throw away their lives together with those of others? 
In the end, we don't do anything except stay tuned to the non-stop broadcasts on radio and TV. At least the extreme-right people, who in past years used to rush to such scenes with their hate placards, are not there either today. It seems that they no longer find the public so receptive to their simplistic "solutions". 
The flood of news reports continues. The number of fatalities has grown to nine, and doctors at Ichilov Hospital are still fighting to save the life of a very severely wounded sixteen year-old boy. At least two of the women killed were foreign migrant workers, and the Israeli consulate in Romania is trying to locate the family of one of them. Responsibility was claimed by the Islamic Jihad, and the perpetrator was a young man from the West Bank town of Quabatiya. In the Gaza Strip, a Palestinian boy (age not mentioned) was killed in an Israeli artillery bombardment (probably, somebody again instructed the artillery to decrease the range to the Palestinian inhabited areas...)
The bombing had targeted the very same cheap restaurant which was attacked in the previous Tel-Aviv bombing, three and a half months ago. Three and a half months ago. Nobody seems to remember the time when suicide bombings were taking place every week, or also several times each week. Nobody mentions that that had been when Hamas was the main initiator of suicide bombings. Nobody mentions that Hamas has been carefully keeping their one-side truce for more than a year now, that Jihad is a small organization with limited resources, that the Hamas self-restraint has saved the lives of quite a few Israelis in the past year. 
A TV, reporter speaks smugly from the scene of the bombing: "The police had carried out massive detentions of Palestinian workers. Illegal Palestinians were found in all the restaurants and workshops around the site of the bombing. Why couldn't the police arrest them before it happened? (Because they had absolutely nothing to do with the bombing, because they came to Tel-Aviv for no other reason than to feed their families - but nobody says this on the air...) 
In Jerusalem, the swearing-in ceremony of the newly-elected Knesset goes ahead as scheduled, and is broadcast live. The eternal Shimon Peres is Acting Speaker. Not always our favourite among politicians. But in his speech today, he at least admits that the Palestinians are not solely to blame for the absence of peace, and that some Israeli mistakes also have something to do with it. This is not nothing, especially on such a day.
The late night news is sometimes less tightly controlled than the prime time. The commentator reports about Defense Minister Mofaz holding consultations with his generals on the coming military response, and remarks: "So, there will be a retaliation, and the Palestinians will retaliate to the retaliation, and we will retaliate again, and then what?" No answer was forthcoming.
Adam Keller
April 17, Tel-Aviv

[5] Blumberg, A. 1985. Zion before Zionism 1838-1880. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. (pp.21-23)

[6] Izetbegovic, Alija. 1999 [1980]. Le manifeste Islamique (original title: Islamska deklaracija). Beyrouth-Liban: Éditions Al-Bouraq. (see especially the pages 75-76; 81-82; 105; 118; 132).

To understand better Izetbegovic’s ideology, read:

“WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN BOSNIA? Were the Serbs the criminal aggressors, as the official story claims, or were they the victims?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 19 August 2005; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/yugo/ihralija1.htm

[7] “Jews and Christians under Islam Dhimmitude and Marcionism”

Original title : « Juifs et chrétiens sous l’Islam. Dhimmitude et marcionisme, » published in Commentaire (97) Spring 2002, Paris: 105-116. (Commentaire is a quarterly review founded by Raymond Aron. Editorial director: Jean-Claude Casanova) Translated by Nidra Poller.
http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/by_dhimmitude_marcionism_en.pdf

[8] The relevant passage is quoted in: Carroll, J. 2001. Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. (pp.216-217)

[8a] To learn more about the Roman Final Solution against the Jews in the first and second centuries, and why you never heard about it, read chapter one of The Crux of World History: Vol. 1. The Book of Genesis: The Birth of the Jewish People (2005, Francisco Gil-White), entitled:

CHAPTER 1. The Roman ‘Final Solution’ in the first and second centuries; why it happened, and why you never heard about it.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/crux01.pdf

[9] The relevant passage is quoted in: Carroll, J. 2001. Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. (pp.216-217)

[10] To see a partial list of Western outrages against the Jews in the last 2000 years, read the preface to:

“THE MODERN ‘PROTOCOLS OF ZION’: How the mass media now promotes the same lies that caused the death of more than 5 million Jews in WWII”; Historical and Investigative Research; 25 August 2005; by Francisco Gil-Whitehttp://www.hirhome.com/israel/mprot1.htm

[10a] "a Byzantine army was defeated at the Battle of the Yarmuk River (636), thereby opening Palestine and Syria to Arab Muslim control."

SOURCE: "Byzantine Empire." Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica Online. http://proxy.library.upenn.edu:9022/eb/article-9239
[Accessed May 7, 2006].

[11] “In 1980, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia gave a clear definition: ‘What is meant by jihad is a united, comprehensive, integrated Arab-Islamic confrontation in which we place all our resources and our spiritual, cultural, political, material and military potential in a long and untiring ‘Holy War’ against Israel, of course, who else?’”

SOURCE: Evening Standard (London) May 19, 1994; SECTION: Pg. 9; LENGTH: 907 words; HEADLINE: A NEW KIND OF JIHAD

[12] Jews have received at least 22% of all Nobel prizes awarded so far, but they constitute just 0.2% of the world’s population. But these numbers actually understate the drama of Jewish performance: Nobel prizes were first awarded in 1905, and most Jews were not even allowed to get a university education until after World War II. In the United States, university quotas against Jews were not fully lifted until after the partial victories of the Civil Rights Movement. Despite this, almost 40% of all US Nobel prizes have gone to Jews (US Jews are just 2% of the total population in this country).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_Prize_winners http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_United_States 

Understanding the Palestinian Movement

An HIR Series, in four parts
Historical and Investigative Research - 30 April 2006
by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov2.htm
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
2		Was there, in British Mandate Palestine,
		a ‘nationally conscious’ ‘Palestinian
		Arab people’?
_________________________________________________________

█ Introduction

█ Where did the name ‘Palestine’ come from?

█ Where is ‘Palestine’?

▄ The PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) denies that ‘Palestine’ exists!

█ Who are ‘the Palestinians’?
__________________________________________________________

Introduction

In Part 1 we saw that historian Nathan Weinstock finds it “understandable” that, in 1929, Arab mobs attempted to exterminate the Jews in British Mandate ‘Palestine.’ And why does he? Because “the Zionist leaders,” he explains, “clearly allied with the British” against the “national consciousness” of the “Palestinian anti-colonialist movement.” This is the standard anti-Zionist representation: a population designated as the Arab Palestinian people, equipped with a “national consciousness,” was living in a place called ‘Palestine’ when Zionist Jews came to dispossess them at the point of a British imperialist gun.[1]

It’s a hypothesis. Can it be right?

Not if it produces automatic absurdities. As you may also recall from Part 1, Lieutenant Colonel John Patterson, an offended eyewitness, accused at the time that his own superiors in the British military were inciting the Arabs to attack the Jews with terrorism because they needed an excuse to renege on their treaty obligation to create a Jewish national home in British Mandate ‘Palestine.’[2] No, says Nathan Weinstock: the reason the British “encouraged” genocidal, anti-Jewish Arab violence was to produce a “distraction from the [Arab] anti-imperialist struggle.” You may ignore Nathan Weinstock’s explanation because Nathan Weinstock has stipulated to the crime: he himself concedes that the British “encouraged” (his words) Arab mob terrorism against the Jews.[3] Under the normal rules of logic, this refutes his claim that the Zionist Jews and the British were allied against the Arabs.

But Nathan Weinstock can be invoked to refute Nathan Weinstock in other ways, too.

On the question of the reality of ‘Palestine,’ Weinstock himself remarks on “how vague the borders of Palestine were,” and points out that, in the 19th century, “Herzl [founder of the Zionist movement]...referred to Sinai as ‘Egyptian Palestine.’”[3a] In addition, he says:

“When the first Zionist immigrants arrived in the Holy Land, Palestine did not exist as a distinct political entity. The territory which corresponded to this name was composed, roughly speaking, of the western provinces of the region which was traditionally known as ‘Syria.’ There were no borders to delimit it precisely. In fact, the definitive borders of the country, which covers about 17,000 square miles, were established by a series of agreements and treaties concluded between 1906 and 1922. The vagueness of the word ‘Palestine’ in the 19th century is illustrated by the vocabulary of the first Zionists, who used the expressions ‘Syria’ and ‘Palestine’ interchangeably.”[4]

So ‘Palestine,’ says Weinstock, “did not exist as a distinct political entity” and in fact the territory Weinstock would like to call ‘Palestine’ “was traditionally known as Syria.” The vagueness in the location of ‘Palestine’ was such that nobody was sure whether ‘Palestine’ was a part of ‘Syria’ or synonymous with ‘Syria,’ so they tended to use the terms without much discipline. And Weinstock is right: ‘Palestine’ didn’t get borders that stuck until 1922 -- and it was the British colonialists (imperialist foreigners from Europe, mind you), who arbitrarily drew those borders. This does not look like an impressive defense of the view that ‘Palestine’ had any political or cultural reality, which perhaps explains why Weinstock’s next sentence reads like special pleading: “A good case can be made, however, that, even then, there existed a specific Palestinian [Arab] identity.”

A “good case can be made,” can it? How curious, then, that Nathan Weinstock should have neglected to make it. Because, speaking as an author, when I think I have a good case and I've got my fingers on the keyboard I cannot resist the urge to type it out for my readers. It is hard to imagine an author who has a good case for something and decides not to show it -- particularly when we are talking about a hotly contested point. So here’s a hypothesis: perhaps, in truth, one cannot make a “good case” that “there existed a specific Palestinian [Arab] identity,” and so, lacking an actual demonstration, Nathan Weinstock has insisted a bit ‘abstractly,’ shall we say, on the supposed correctness of his claim.

I think I can convince you that my hypothesis about Nathan Weinstock is a good one. In order to convince you, I shall lay out what I believe is a solid demonstration that there was no such alleged “Palestinian [Arab] identity,” possessing a “national consciousness,” and that any historian looking at the facts, as Weinstock has, cannot honestly conclude otherwise.

I shall begin with the name, ‘Palestine.’ After all, if there is such a thing as a Palestinian people, it is or was attached to a territory named Palestine that exists or existed.If, however, as Arab historian Philip Hitti testified in 1946 before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, “There is no such thing as ‘Palestine’ in history, absolutely not,”[4a] then it would be absurd to speak of a real Palestinian people. I will therefore first examine the reality of ‘Palestine’ as an indirect way of assessing the reality of the ‘Palestinians.’ Then I will examine the question of ‘Palestinian identity’ directly.

__________________________________________________________

Where did the name ‘Palestine’ come from? 
__________________________________________________________

The ancient Romans gave the name ‘Syria-Palestina,’ in the second century, to land that previously had included the Roman province of Judea (land of the Jews), and before that independent Judah (land of the Jews). Why the name change? Because the Romans were wiping out the Jews: exterminating them. Why? Because the Jews were defending the oppressed masses whom the Romans daily brutalized.[5]

At the time of the name change from Judea to ‘Syria-Palestina,’ the Roman Empire had brought to completion a great genocide of the Jewish people, which lasted some 150 years. This required, naturally, many episodes of mass killing, but historians usually make reference only to the biggest three: the ‘First Jewish War,’ the ‘Diaspora Revolt,’ and the ‘The Second Jewish War.’ A historian of Western antisemitism, James Carroll, writes:

“...[in] the climactic war of 66-73 CE [‘First Jewish War’], ...Jerusalem was laid waste and hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed, (Josephus and Tacitus put the number of Jewish dead in this first war at around 600,000; in the second ‘Jewish war’ sixty years later, the tally of Jewish victims is put at 850,000)... Whatever the actual totals. . .the vast number of victims were killed without the mechanized methods that make modern wars so lethal, which is why analogies between Rome and the worst of twentieth-century dictators [i.e. to Adolf Hitler] may not be misplaced here. . . .if the [Roman] legions had had machine guns, bombs, railroads and [poison] gas at their disposal, who is to say any Jew would have survived the second century?”[6]

Well, in fact very few Jews did survive the second century. As historian Robert Wolfe explains,

“There were close to 1 million Jews in Egypt alone at the start of this period, yet hardly any remaining by the end of the 2nd century CE. The large Jewish communities in Syria and Turkey were likewise decimated. . . By the end of the 2nd century CE, only 750,000 Jews remained in Judah, home of something like 4 million Jews prior to the Roman onslaught.”[7]

Just as most Jews in Hitler’s occupied Europe were exterminated, adds Wolfe, “most Jews within the Roman empire had been either killed or enslaved” by the end of the second century.

Now, the Jewish population before the Roman genocide was not a marginalized minority but one of the largest and fastest-growing populations in the Mediterranean, with multitudes of sympathizers and defenders among non-Jews.[8] This means that the first and second century Roman extermination of the Jews may well have been, in proportional terms, a bigger Catastrophe even than the Nazi crime. So James Carroll should hardly be appealing to the Roman lack of “machine guns, bombs, railroads and gas,” as if there were a need to explain why the Roman Final Solution was smaller than the Nazi version; because it wasn’t smaller.

This horrific mass killing of Jews began with Augustus’ massacres at the turn of the first century and came to a close with the defeat of the Jewish Bar Kochba revolt in the second century, under Emperor Hadrian. In A History of the Jews, Paul Johnson summarizes how this last chapter played out:

“Fifty forts where the rebels had put up resistance were destroyed and 985 towns, villages, and agricultural settlements [also were]. [The ancient Roman author] Dio [Cassius] says 580,000 Jews died in the fighting ‘and countless numbers of starvation, fire and the sword. Nearly the entire land of Judea was laid waste.’ In the late fourth century, St. Jerome reported from Bethlehem a tradition that, after the defeat, there were so many Jewish slaves for sale that the price dropped to less than a horse.

[The emperor] Hadrian relentlessly carried through to completion his plan to transform ruined Jerusalem into a Greek polis. He buried the hollows of the old city in rubble to level the site. Outside the limits he removed the debris to get at and excavate the rock below to provide the huge ashlars for the public buildings he set up on the leveled site... The city he built was called Aelia Capitolina. Greek-speakers were moved in to populate it and the Jews were forbidden to enter on pain of death.”[9]

After finishing this great extermination of the Jewish people, emperor Hadrian was attempting to cleanse remaining Jews from their own land. To this effect he forbade entry to Jews and changed the name of the Jewish capital (which he had pulverized) to Aelia Capitolina. Something else that Hadrian did was...change the name of the place from Judea to ‘Syria Palestina.’

So, the name ‘Palestine’ was invented by the Romans as part of an effort to wipe out the Jewish people and erase any connection between them and their homeland. I think this is rather interesting.

The Roman exterminators chose ‘Palestine’ in order to allege that this was the land of the Philistines (that’s what ‘Palestine’ means: land of the Philistines), as opposed to the land of the Jews.[10] 

It is significant that the land which the Philistines at one time occupied is much smaller than any of the definitions of ‘Palestine’ -- even the Roman.[10a] And it is also significant that the Greeks, from whom the use of the name ‘Palestina’ is supposedly taken, did not call this general area ‘Palestina’ when they ruled it. When the Ptolemaic Greeks ruled this general area they called it ‘Syria and Phoenicia,’ and scholars refer to this Ptolemaic possession as ‘Coele Syria.’[10b]

But the most important question for us is this: can this name, picked by the ancient Roman exterminators of the Jews, be applied for cultural or ethnic reasons to any Arabs? The answer is no. The Philistines, who no longer exist, were not Arabs. In fact, the Philistines were not even Semites, having been most closely related to the Greeks. Perhaps even more significantly, since the very name ‘Palestine’ fell into ambiguous use/disuse for a long time, it is quite impossible that a group of Arabs lived there who defined themselves as ethnic ‘Palestinians’ across the ages.

So, to see where ‘Palestine’ might be found, with respect to the claims of modern Arabs, we must turn to the question of how and when this name came back into use, in recent times. I turn to this next.

__________________________________________________________

Where is ‘Palestine’? __________________________________________________________

“The name Palestine was revived after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in World War I and applied to the territory in this region that was placed under the British Mandate for Palestine.”[11]

As anti-Zionist historian Nathan Weinstock himself told us above, “the definitive borders of [Palestine]...were established by a series of agreements and treaties concluded between 1906 and 1922.”

It was the British colonialists who gave ‘Palestine’ its borders in 1922. The way this happened contains an important lesson.

“In June 1922 the League of Nations [the highest international authority, precursor to the United Nations] passed the Palestine Mandate. The Palestine Mandate was an explicit document regarding Britain’s responsibilities and powers of administration in Palestine including ‘secur[ing] the establishment of the Jewish national home,’ and ‘safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine.’”[12]

Rather than honoring their treaty obligations about “secur[ing] the establishment of the Jewish national home,” and “safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine,” the British fomented genocidal Arab mob violence against the Palestinian Jews (see Part 1). As mentioned, Lieutenant Colonel John Patterson accused at the time that the British wanted to create such awful anti-Jewish conditions that they could appear to be scuttling the project for a Jewish national homeunder duress.[2]

The British did something else, too. Having arbitrarily drawn borders around a first piece of land, baptized with the name ‘Palestine’ in 1920, the British Empire soon decided that this was not really ‘Palestine,’ after all, and redrew the borders in 1921-22.

b click on a map to enlarge

The 1920 definition of ‘Palestine’ included what is present day Israel plus what eventually became the Kingdom of Jordan (see maps above). The second definition of ‘Palestine’ that was made official in 1922 lopped off what was now called ‘Transjordan’ (later to become Jordan) -- and this was well over half of the territory, mind you -- leaving as ‘Palestine’ just the territory of present-day Israel (including the disputed territories of West Bank and Gaza).

“The [1922 British] White Paper stated that the Balfour Declaration could not be amended and that the Jews were in Palestine by right, [but] it partitioned the area of the Mandate by excluding the area east of the Jordan River [now ‘Transjordan’] from Jewish settlement.”[12a]

The British changed the definition of ‘Palestine’ in 1921-22 in order to restrict Jewish settlement to a smaller territory. You see, according to its treaty obligations with the League of Nations, the British had to allow Jews to settle in a territory called ‘Palestine,’ where the Jews would make for themselves a national home; so, one way for the British Empire to pretend to stay within the letter of the Palestine Mandate (and Balfour Declaration) and still reduce Jewish opportunities for settlement in the Middle East was to reduce the boundaries of the place called ‘Palestine.’ This is what the British did, and they indeed forbade Jews from settling in Transjordan.

Such sudden, arbitrary changes in the boundaries of ‘Palestine’ undermine the view that there was much reality to ‘Palestine’ to begin with. And the narrowing of the boundaries of ‘Palestine,’ with its restriction of Jewish settlement, is consistent with Lieutenant Colonel John Patterson’s hypothesis that the British were trying to destroy Zionism. What all of this is not consistent with, once again, is historian Nathan Weinstock’s interpretation that, “clearly,” as he claims to see it, the Zionist and the British were allied against the Arabs.

By the way, an interesting contrast impresses itself on the mind when studying these events. Precisely because the name ‘Palestine’ was associated, in international law,with the creation of a Jewish national home, most Westerners speaking in the first half of the 20th century used the words ‘Palestine’ and ‘Palestinian’ in reference to Jews. The Jews themselves spoke this way. Hillel Kook (alias Peter Bergson), a Zionist leader, expressed himself thusly: “I am a Hebrew. My allegiance is to the Hebrew nation. My country is Palestine.”[13] What one cannot find, by contrast, as late as the late 1940s, is much recognition on the Arab side that a place called ‘Palestine’ even existed. In fact, quite a few Arabs went out of their way emphatically to deny that such a place existed.

“...the Arab historian Philip Hitti testified in 1946 before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry that ‘There is no such thing as ‘Palestine’ in history, absolutely not.’ Earlier, in 1937, a local Arab leader appearing before the Peel Commission similarly declared, ‘There is no such thing [as Palestine]. ‘Palestine’ is a term the Zionists invented.’ ...During the [illegal] Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and the Egyptian occupation of Gaza [at the conclusion of the War of 1948, in which the Arabs had proudly attempted to exterminate the Israeli Jews[14]], the [so-called] Palestinian Arabs had [likewise] not claimed a distinct peoplehood or sued for self-determination.”[15]

Consistent with all the preceding, the Arab body given the most exalted UN official recognition as a ‘government-in-exile’ for the ‘Palestinian Arabs,’ the ‘Palestine Liberation Organization,’ would, in the late 1960s, rather comically deny that Palestine exists. This story is so full of useful lessons that I will delay the punchline a bit, that we may better appreciate all the minor epiphanies decorating the setup.

The PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) denies that ‘Palestine’ exists!_________________

The original PLO Charter, elaborated in 1964, states in article 24 that:

“This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.”[16]

Notice: when it was formed in 1964, the PLO went out of its way to state that the West Bank and Gaza (1) were not ‘Palestinian’ lands, (2) rightfully belonged to Jordan and Egypt, respectively (this was false: Jordan and Egypt were illegal squatters), and (3) were of no interest to the PLO. Isn’t it curious that the ‘international community’ has forced down Israel’s throat a ‘Palestinian state’ precisely in those territories, the West Bank and Gaza, that the founding constitution of the Palestine Liberation Organization explicitly declared, in a special article, were not ‘Palestinian’?

I think this is curious. There is more.

The PLO took the extraordinary step of re-writing its charter in 1968 in order to redefine what ‘Palestine’ supposely was, and since then it has been demanding the West Bank and Gaza as part of ‘Palestine.’ The text of this 1968 (and still current) PLO Charter says:

Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people.

Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.[17]

Of course, these two articles also appear in the original 1964 Charter, but the new 1968 Charter makes absolutely no reference to the PLO renouncing sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza. It is from this moment in time, therefore, that the PLO has been laying claim to these territories.

I must point out something: as we saw above, the British changed the definition of ‘Palestine’ during the British Mandate, and yet the PLO does not explain which of the two definitions it is adopting. One can understand this, however, because it is embarrassing: the Palestine Liberation Organization is choosing, for the definition of its supposedly ‘ancestral’ homeland, one of the two arbitrary definitions of ‘Palestine’ that the foreigner infidel British colonialists introduced. And yet this is supposed to be Nathan Weinstock’s “Palestinian anti-colonialist movement.” I point out, too, that of the two arbitrary definitions of ‘Palestine’ during the British Mandate, the PLO has chosen the smaller one, and also the least legitimate, for having been redrawn arbitrarily and unilaterally (and hence illegally) by the British.

Curiouser and curiouser...

Further, the PLO Charter affirms that ‘Palestine’ is “an indivisible territorial unit” (see above), but the PLO’s preferred British definition of ‘Palestine’ in fact constitutes adivision, by a foreign power, of an earlier ‘Palestine.’ Shouldn’t the PLO be protesting the British division, which reduced ‘Palestine’ to less than half its size? On the other hand, it is true that such a complaint would be hypocritical, because the PLO itself divided Britain’s division of ‘Palestine’: the PLO’s 1964 definition is smaller even than the smaller British definition (and hence smaller than the PLO’s 1968 definition). So... Why, if the PLO itself is apparently not sure where ‘Palestine’ is, and itself has produced the most drastic division of ‘Palestine,’ does the PLO insist that this is “an indivisible territorial unit”?

Every way we turn: absurdity. But there’s more.

Look at the problem this way: Why did the PLO change its charter in 1968 in order to enlarge the definition of ‘Palestine’ so modestly? If the PLO was going to risk the ridiculous spectacle, just four years after having been founded, of redrawing the boundaries of its supposed ancestral homeland, then it should have asked at least for the1920 British definition of ‘Palestine,’ because this was the largest and legally least problematic definition. No? But the PLO changed the charter merely to add the West Bank and Gaza...

Now, this was the most embarrassing move possible because in the 1964 (and founding) Charter, the PLO had gone quite out of its way to explain, in a special article, that the West Bank and Gaza were not part of ‘Palestine.’ So why not keep the slightly smaller definition of ‘Palestine’ of 1964? This one avoided a ridiculous spectacle and a major embarrassment, and moreover did not require the political absurdity of the PLO’s pretending to oppose Western colonialists while adopting the Western colonialist definition of the PLO’s supposed ancestral homeland! And yet, no: the PLO took the extraordinary step of re-writing its charter, in 1968, in order to chose the ridiculous spectacle, the major embarrassment, the political absurdity, and... the weakest legal case.

Is there any logic to the PLO’s decisions? There is.

To discover this PLO logic the trick is to notice, glinting like a needle in the haystack of tangled and nested absurdity, the following consistency:

1) In 1964, the PLO’s definition of ‘Palestine’ corresponded, exactly, to the borders of the state of Israel.

2) In 1968, the PLO’s definition of ‘Palestine’ corresponded, exactly, to the borders of the state of Israel.

The only difference is that in those two dates the borders of Israel were not the same: in 1964 Israel did not control the West Bank and Gaza, and in 1968 it did. What happened between 1964 and 1968? The Six Day War of 1967. In this conflict, the Jordanians, who had been illegally squatting on the West Bank since the war of 1948, and the Egyptians, who had been doing the same on the Gaza strip, were kicked out of these territories when the Israelis defeated another proud attempt by the Arabs to exterminate the Israeli Jews.[17a] The Israeli Jews offered the territories back in exchange for a mere promise of peace, but the Arabs would not do even this, so they didn't get the West Bank and Gaza back.[17b] Which was just as well, because:

1) these territories never belonged to the Jordanians and Egyptians;[18]

2) the Jews indisputably had an international legal right to settle on these territories;[18a];

3) three years earlier the Palestine Liberation Organization had explained, explicitly, in its founding charter, that these territories were not part of ‘Palestine’ (see above); and

4) as it turns out, in the long run the State of Israel cannot survive without controlling the West Bank and Gaza (this is the expert opinion of a secret Pentagon study done immediately after the 1967 Six Day War, which the US did not show to the Israelis even as it pressured them -- at the very same time -- to return these indispensable territories!).[18b]

And that will do for epiphanies. Let us now move directly to the punchline: since it was the West Bank and Gaza changing hands in 1967 that caused the PLO to re-write its charter in 1968, so that these previously excluded territories could now be included in the PLO definition of ‘Palestine,’ then we have found the PLO’s logic:

The PLO will lay a claim, as ‘Palestine,’ to the precise boundaries of the territory controlled by the Jewish state.

The PLO’s definition of ‘Palestine’ is essentially this: ‘wherever the Jews are in the Middle East.’ This emphatically cannot be submitted -- not even in principle -- as the definition of the ancestral “homeland of the Arab Palestinian people.” That would be absurd. Since the PLO nevertheless says this, I conclude that the PLO does not really believe that ‘Palestine’ exists. They are just pretending.

This was our quarry, remember? I promised that I would show you how, in the late 1960s, the Palestine Liberation Organization had denied that ‘Palestine’ existed. QED.

And the following observation is merely for the pleasure of savoring an additional -- delicious -- political absurdity. The formula that obviously determines the PLO definitions of ‘Palestine’ -- ‘wherever the Jews are in the Middle East’ -- could, in principle, be submitted for consideration as the definition of the homeland of the Jewishpeople. So one way to interpret what the PLO says with its behavior is that, according to the PLO, ‘Palestine is the homeland of the Jewish people.’ This takes the cake.

Now, as a test of the analysis so far, we should ask: Do we have other reasons to believe that the PLO’s logic really is, simply, just to lay claim to whatever land the Jews are on? We do.

The 1968 PLO Charter states the objectives of the PLO as follows. Article 9 says that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.” That’s worth chewing on for a second, because the PLO could have written the same thing like this: “it is required that Palestine be liberated in the act of killing people.” Killing which people? This is relatively obvious. Article 15 of the PLO Charter states that it is “a national duty to repulse the Zionist imperialist invasion from the great Arab homeland and to purge the Zionist presence from Palestine,” and article 22 declares that “the liberation of Palestine will liquidate the Zionist and imperialist presence.”[19] In other words, the PLO, which organization asserts that ‘Palestine’ may be ‘liberated’ only in the act of killing people, explains that its goal is purging and liquidating -- that is to say, exterminating -- “Zionists.” Doesn’t this agree perfectly with how the PLO, behaviorally, chooses to define ‘Palestine’ as ‘the territory that Jews live on’?

The PLO’s goal is the extermination of the Israeli Jews, not the liberation of nonexistent Palestine.

Now you understand why the PLO says ‘Palestine’ is “an indivisible territorial unit.” It is such for the purposes of ‘liberation,’ not geographical definition. Since the PLO explains that it will ‘liberate’ ‘Palestine’ by killing Jews, “indivisible territorial unit” simply means that it must all be ‘liberated’: not one Jew will be left standing.

You can also appreciate now why the PLO never laid a claim to Transjordan (included in the 1920 British definition of ‘Palestine’): because the British had forbidden Jewish settlements in Transjordan: there were no Jews there. What’s the point of ‘liberating’ Transjordan, for the PLO, if they won’t be killing Jews in the process?

All of the absurdities, resolved.

So, here’s what we’ve learned about the name ‘Palestine’:

1) In the first instance, ‘Palestine’ was given a definition to assist the goals of a Roman anti-Jewish genocide, when the Romans were cleansing Judea of Jews;

2) In the second instance, ‘Palestine’ was given a re-re-definition by the British in order to restrict Jewish immigration as part of a broader British policy to scuttle the movement to create a state where the Jewish people could live free of the threat of extermination; and,

3) In the third instance, ‘Palestine’ was given two different definitions by the leaders of the ‘Palestinian movement,’ both consistent with the following formula:‘Palestine’ is the land on which the Jews live, in the Middle East, and which the Arabs will ‘liberate’ by exterminating these Jews.

The nonexistence of ‘Palestine’ can certainly explain why even the leaders of the supposed ‘Palestinian movement’ cannot agree on its borders. But what explains the undeniable consistency in the political logic of the various definitions of this fictitious entity, ‘Palestine’?

__________________________________________________________

Who are ‘the Palestinians’? __________________________________________________________

In 1985 historian Arnold Blumberg published Zion before Zionism:1838-1880 in order to document a period that is often neglected in the historiography of this place, and which occurred right before the great Zionist migrations began. His summary of the composition of the population is as follows:

“No census was taken, but the best estimates point to a maximum of 300,000 inhabitants living within the sanjaks of historic Palestine in 1841. The majority of the population were Sunni Moslem. In the far north there were concentrations of Shi’ite Moslems and Druse. Other major Druse settlements were near Haifa. In a land which never totally loses any of its historic ties, the presence of a small Samaritan remnant living among the Moslems at Nablus piqued the interest of observers. They lent additional color to the religious mosaic of the land. The four cities holy to Judaism in Palestine, Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed, and Tiberias, had substantial native Jewish populations. Small Jewish communities also subsisted in most of the larger towns and even in the villages of the Galilee. At Bethlehem and Nazareth, Christian Arabs constituted a majority of the inhabitants.”[20]

It is difficult to discern in the above a ‘Palestinian people.’ If anybody insists that the place described above really should be called ‘Palestine,’ then the ‘native Palestinians’ were all of those people. And quite a few Jews, mind you, were represented among the native Palestinians.

Even if one wanted to claim -- though it would have zero justification -- that the Arabs in ‘Palestine’ were the real ‘Palestinian people,’ this still would not work for reasons having to do entirely with the Arabs themselves: some were Muslim (some Shiite, some Sunni), some Druze, some Christian. They did not have a common identity.

But the Sunni Muslims were the majority so, in a desperate move, and likewise without justification, one might try to say that the ‘real Palestinians’ are the “Arab Palestinian people” of which the PLO pretends to speak, and that this means just the Sunni Muslims. Again, this will not work for reasons having entirely to do just with the Sunni Muslims themselves. Consider what historian Arnold Blumberg writes about them:

[Quote from Arnold Blumberg begins here]

Although such modest commercial and political power as existed was concentrated in the walled towns, the bulk of the Moslem population lived in the unwalled villages and the nomadic encampments of rural Palestine. In a country having no rain through the late spring, summer, and early fall, most of Palestine was marginal desert. Farmers either depended upon the few fresh water springs or rivulets which flowed all year, or dug deep wells free of the infiltration of brine.

The village peasants were usually tenants, subsisting on a share-crop basis by contract with great effendi landlords. The effendis, living in town houses within the walled cities, had only a casual contact with their tenants, entrusting day-to-day negotiations to resident stewards.

Huddled on hilltops for security, peasant villages maintained farms on terraced lower slopes and in the valleys only by means of irrigation. The hardest working Arab peasant, however, knew that the fruits of his labor might be torn from him in an instant. Across all the land roved scattered bands of Bedouin tribes. Each band moved independently with its sheep, goats, horses, and camels, but stayed within an enlarged territorial range shared with a clan descended from a common ancestor.

To the Bedouin, the Turkish sultan and his pashas were distant shadows having little relevance to life. The Bedouin viewed the world from the perspective of the friendships and enmities of his clan. Ancient blood feuds, whose origins could be traced through centuries, were freshly etched on the communal memory and made endemic warfare part of nomadic life. Complex clan loyalties existed within an even larger matrix of blood loyalties, since almost the entire native Arab Moslem population, whether nomadic Bedouin or settled villagers, remembered that they were Yeminis or Kais. The Yeminis recalled that their ancestors had been warriors from the southern Arabian peninsula. The Kais, whose residence in Palestine was dated to the Moslem conquest of the land in the seventh century, traced their roots to tribes having hoary blood feuds with the Yeminis. Thus, for example, the great clan of Abu Gosh, whose village dominated the mountain heights through which ran the trail from Jaffa to Jerusalem, had to be paid handsomely to permit pilgrims to make the ascent. As Abu Gosh was Yemini, however, adherents of theKais could not even pay for transit across their lands, but had to make long detours.

The Bedouin...resented any peasant villager who attempted to fence a water source. Their response was to destroy such walls and to seize any foodstuffs hoarded by villagers in defiance of the Bedouin’s claim to free movement across the land. Peasants, huddled on their hilltops, rarely had the will or the military skill to defend themselves.

A peasant, if he was to survive Bedouin depradations and the claims of hostile villagers, subsisted within a network of alliances, contracts and traditions governing the rights of farmers and shepherds to share the same water and land.

Thus, groves of citrus fruit and olives might subsist if the farmer was willing to buy their survival and to defend them by watchful guards. The Bedouin had long since destroyed the native forests which had once covered the land. The hillsides, eroded to bedrock and deprived of top soil, were mute witnesses to a land subjected to man’s rapine.

What the Bedouin did not take by force or by threat, Turkish soldiery took in the name of naked extortion. Far worse than the regular Turkish troops, who were at least under some discipline, were the bashi-bazouk or howari irregular troops. These Arab conscripts, though springing from peasant villages themselves, had no scruples about seizing the poultry, cattle, or farm produce of a village belonging to strangers to whom they were unrelated by ties of blood or alliance.[21]

[Quote from Arnold Blumberg ends here]

I cannot perceive in the above that the Sunni Muslim majority in ‘Palestine’ in the mid-19th century had a common identity in the least. Nathan Weinstock’s imagined “national consciousness” does not exist here. The place was divided by complexly cross-cutting tribal, clan, and lineage identities, constant warfare between nomads and peasants, extortion by roving irregular and regular mercenaries, and considerable oppression by the landowning class against the peasants. The most stable identities appear to have been Yeminis and Kais, and these did not bind the Sunni Muslims in ‘Palestine’ but divided (still divide?) them into a stable political enmity.

For such a small and underpopulated place, ‘Palestine’ contained quite a few different social identities, but one identity for which simply no evidence appears to exist in mid-19th century ‘Palestine’ is ‘Palestinian.’

As if this were not enough, the dramatic population changes that followed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in fact weaken still further (this is possible) the case for a ‘Palestinian identity’ as the modern enemies of Israel defend it. I turn to this next.

Arnold Blumberg explains the population changes in Palestine after 1880:

“...1880...is the last year before the great Jewish immigration began. ...The Turks had begun the systematic colonization of non-Palestinian Moslems, notably Circassians and Algerians, in 1878. After 1880, the forces of nascent Jewish nationalism, foreign Moslem colonization sponsored by the Turks, and spontaneous Arab immigration prompted by the new prosperity of Palestine changed the demographic face of the land.”[22]

So, an area that was mostly depopulated, with barely 300,000 inhabitants in the year 1841, now received a huge influx of population. This was not, as many think, aJewish influx. It was partly a Jewish influx, yes, but it was also a Muslim influx, as we see above. The two main causes of the Muslim influx, the Ottoman Turkish policy of “foreign Moslem colonization,” as well as the reasons behind the “spontaneous Arab immigration,” are quite interesting for us.

First, the policy of the Ottoman Turks to flood Palestine with non-Palestinian Muslims had a point: defeating Zionism demographically. Historian Bat Ye’or explains:

“Millions of Muhagir (émigrés), Muslims fleeing the new Christian states in the Balkans after defeats in the 19th century, abandoned the former Ottoman provinces of Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria, Rumania, Bosnia-Herzegovinia, Thessalia, Epirus, and Macedonia. The sultan resorted to the traditional policy of Islamic colonization and, determined to counter the Zionist movement, settled the refugees in Judea, Galilee, Samaria and Transjordan. These were the same Muslims who had combated the rights, emancipation, and independence of Christian dhimmis (semi-slaves of the Muslims) in Europe [for an explanation of dhimmis, see Part 1 -- FGW]. The sultan had sent some of them to Anatolia, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine where they were given collective land grants under favorable conditions according to the principles of Islamic colonization imposed on [non-Muslim] natives ever since the beginning of the Arab conquest. Circassian tribes fleeing the Russian advance in the Caucasus were sent into the Levant at the same time; most of them were settled around Armenian villages in Mesopotamia where they soon began to massacre the local people. Other Circassian colonists settled in historic Palestine -- today’s Israel, Cisjordan [West Bank] and Jordan -- establishing villages in Judea, and near Jerusalem such as Abou Gosh, or in Kuneitra on the Golan. Today their descendents intermarry. In Jordan they make up the king’s guard.”[23]

So, the Turkish Sultan resettled vast numbers of Muslims in Palestine. He resettled them in other places too but it is interesting that resettlement in Palestine was important to him as he was “determined to counter the Zionist movement.” Officially, the Sultan was charging handsomely for cooperating very weakly with some Jewish resettlement schemes, and you may compare this to the British policy, which also combined very heavy underhanded sabotage with a public face of supposed official support.

Let us now turn to the “spontaneous Arab immigration” into Palestine. It may have been “spontaneous” in the sense that it was not part of the Turkish Sultan’s deliberately anti-Zionist policy to resettle foreign Muslims in ‘Palestine,’ but there was nothing random about it: the Jews attracted them. As Blumberg states, this immigration was “prompted by the new prosperity of Palestine,” which prosperity was a gift on the land brought by the Zionist Jews.

Historian Nathan Weinstock explains the effect that the Zionist Jews had on the land:

“[B]eyond all question, the Jewish pioneers did drain the marshes, did reclaim unproductive soil and afforest the hills, and did make them green again through the judicious use of advanced techniques based on rational and intensive irrigation.”[24]

This assessment is mainstream but it is significant to see that even an anti-Zionist historian cannot but admit that the Zionist Jews lovingly transformed “a land subjected to man’s rapine” into something closer to the Biblical “land flowing with milk and honey.”

In A History of Israel, historian Howard Sachar notes that the British Peel Commission, which was established to study a partition plan for ‘Palestine’ in 1937 (following the ‘Arab Revolt’ of 1936), produced a proposal that…

“...filled 404 pages, contained elaborate maps and statistical indices, and ranked as one of the major documents of British foreign policy. First summarizing the views expressed by Arabs and Jews, the report then detailed the accomplishments of the Jewish National Home, not the least of which was an economy vigorous enough to have stimulated a 50 percent growth of the Arab population since 1921. There was no question that Arabs, fellahin and landlords alike, were enjoying unprecedented affluence in Palestine. The Arab charge that Jews had obtained too large a proportion of the best soil could not be substantiated, for much of the citrus land originally had been sand or swamp...”[25]

Even the British -- who had been the ones fomenting anti-Jewish Arab mob violence in order to derail the Zionist project, in addition to reducing the size of ‘Palestine’ and reducing drastically the allowed rate of immigration, later also turning back ships full of Jewish refugees escaping Hitler’s massacres -- could not but admit in the Peel Commission document that the Zionists were transforming the land for the better. This Jewish-propelled prosperity caused so many Arabs to immigrate to ‘Palestine’ that there was, as Howard Sachar observes, “a 50 percent growth of the Arab population” just between the years of 1921 and 1937!

The Jews were producing jobs in ‘Palestine,’ and this attracted many Arab immigrants. It is not redundant to repeat it. (By the way, quite a few demographic analyses of British Mandate Palestine grossly underestimate the extent of Arab immigration because they -- irrationally -- refuse to even consider the massive illegal immigration of Arabs that was going on.[25a])

You may recall that, about the period covering the late 19th and early 20th centuries, historian Nathan Weinstock stated that “a good case can be made... that, even then, there existed a specific Palestinian [Arab] identity.” And yet historian Nathan Weinstock did not have the courage to present this case. Perhaps it is now obvious why. Where is the “Palestinian [Arab] identity”? I cannot find it. What I see is a population of Muslims, some Arab, some not, who immigrated into this territory in the last century at the same time that many Jews also immigrated. The Jewish and Arab immigrants completely altered this place because it had been basically empty in 1841, before Zionism and the opposing Turkish policy of resettling Muslims in Palestine began in tandem. In ‘Palestine,’ essentially, everybody is an immigrant. So from the point of view of where people come from, this country belongs to the immigrants -- Muslim (Arab or not) and Jewish -- who began overwhelming the natives starting in 1878, when the Turkish Sultan began his policy of resettling non-Palestinian Muslims in 'Palestine', shortly in advance of the Zionist migrations, which began in 1880.

But if other arguments relevant to ownership are put forward, the Jewish immigrants have a better claim to ‘Palestine.’ After all, it was the Zionist Jewish immigrants who lovingly improved what was a ravaged and abandoned land, making it flourish with their hard work because they loved it; and it was the Zionist Jews who called themselves ‘Palestinians’ and who accepted a legal UN vote in 1947 that would partition ‘Palestine’ to create, side by side, a Jewish and an Arab state. The Arabs by contrast hotly denied that they wanted an Arab state precisely on the territory where (thanks to US threats against Israel) they will now apparently get one, and moreover denied that ‘Palestine’ even existed; following the 1947 vote at the UN, the Arabs launched the War of 1948, an attempted extermination of the Israeli Jews (launched without any shame for the fact that the European Holocaust had just ended, not three years earlier[14]).

This War of 1948 was won by the Israeli Jews, who in consequence ended up paying with the blood of their young sons and daughters in arms, and with the blood of many civilians whom the Arabs attacked (as the Arab offensive was terrorist[26]), for the right to establish their country. One consequence of this conflict was that many of the immigrant Arab and other Muslim families that had resettled in ‘Palestine’ as part of the Turkish Sultan’s policy of opposing Zionism, or because they had been attracted by the economic boom created by the Zionists, ended up displaced from the brand new homes they had only very recently established in ‘Palestine.’ This is often referred to as the ‘Palestinian refugee problem,’ by way of trying to suggest that the immigrants who lost their brand new homes were ‘ancestral Palestinians’ -- but they weren’t.

Anti-Zionists have represented Israel’s War of Independence differently. According to them, this war was only one episode in a wrongful dispossession of the allegedly ancestral ‘Palestinian Arabs’ by the Zionist Jews. And this brings us to the next question: Do the Arabs who claim a grievance against the Israeli Jews -- however we may choose to call these Arabs -- have a case? Were they in any way unjustly dispossessed of their lands? The next piece in this series will examine these issues.

The next piece in this series is:

“Did the Zionist Jews take something away from the Arabs in British Mandate ‘Palestine’?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 2 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov3.htm

__________________________________________________________

Footnotes and Further Reading
__________________________________________________________

[1] “...the Palestinian anti-colonialist movement was deformed by racism. The distorted national struggle expressed itself in anti-Jewish slogans (‘Palestine is our country and the Jews are our dogs’), followed up by attacks upon Jewish passers-by and store-owners, and eventually in mob violence akin to the all-too familiar pogrom [ = unprovoked racist attack against unarmed Jews, with the semi-unofficial assistance of the (in this case British) authorities]. These attacks cannot, however, in any way be assimilated to straightforward anti-Semitic outrages which had their source in classical European coordinates of the Jewish problem, but should be seen as a deformed expression of national consciousness, all the more understandable as the Zionist leaders clearly allied with the British while the latter encouraged this distraction from the anti-imperialist struggle.”

SOURCE: Weinstock, N. 1979. Zionism: False Messiah. London: Ink Links Ltd. (pp.166-167) [my emphasis]

[2] The following account of the 1920 anti-Jewish racist riots in Jerusalem is from Kenneth Levin, who quotes at length from eyewitness John Patterson:

"The British, in the [WWI] postwar years, were attempting to maintain their Middle East territories with very limited forces and were indeed concerned with minimizing local unrest. But, of course, this does not account for [British] Mandate [in 'Palestine'] officers working as agents provocateurs and stirring up anti-Jewish violence or for British authorities failing to quell Arab riots when they were fully able to do so. Nor does it explain the [British] Military Administration's preventing local Jewish units -- elements of the Jewish Battalions -- from coming to the defense of the Jews of Jerusalem. [The Jewish leader Vladimir Zeev] Jabotinsky, who tried to organize defense, was arrested by the British and sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment. He was soon released by only in the context of an amnesty extended also to the rioters. The British chose to construe the Jewish units' attempts to defend the Jews of Jerusalem as an intolerable breach of military discipline and disbanded the units.

Liuetenant Colonel John Patterson, a non-Jewish British officer who had commanded the Zion Mule Corps in Gallipolli [a Jewish force that fought with distinction on the British side during WWI], was subsequently appointed commander of the 38th Jewish Battalion and led the battalion in the [WWI] Palestine campaign [during which the British wrested control of 'Palestine' from the Ottoman Turks]. Patterson wrote extensively of the anti-Jewish depredations to which his [Jewish] troops, and the Jewish population of Palestine, were subjected by the British military’s forces in Palestine under Allenby (the Egyptian Expeditionary Force) and later by the Military Administration. These depredations emanated both from the command structure and, in the wake of evident command tolerance, from the rank and file. With regard to Arab attacks on the Jews in April, 1920, in Jerusalem, Patterson, referring to the assault as 'the Jerusalem pogrom,' noted the Military Administration's encouragement of the violence, its failure to intervene to stop it, its blocking of intervention by Jewish troops, its attempts to use the Arab assault as an excuse to curb Zionist programs, and its scapegoating of Jabotinsky.

Patterson wrote, for example, of the events of April, 1920, 'A veritable 'pogrom,' such as we have hitherto only associated with Tsarist [Czarist] Russia, took place in the Holy City of Jerusalem in April, 1920, and as this was the climax to the maladministration of the Military Authorities, I consider that the facts of the case should be made public...

'The Balfour Declaration [which gave Britain the responsibility of establishing a Jewish homeland in British Mandate 'Palestine']...was never allowed [by the Military Administration] to be officially published within the borders of Palestine; the Hebrew language was proscribed; there was open discrimination against the Jews; the Jewish Regiment was at all times kept in the background and treated as a pariah. This official attitude was interpreted by the hooligan element and interested schemers in the only possible way, viz., that the military authorities in Palestine were against the Jews and Zionism, and the conviction began to grow [within Arab circles] that any act calculated to deal a death blow to Zionist aspirations would not be unwelcome by those in authority...

'Moreover, this malign influence was sometimes strengthened by very plain speaking. The Military Governor of an important town was actually heard to declare...in the presence of British and French Officers and of Arab waiters, that in case of anti-Jewish riots in his city, he would remove the garrison and take up his position at a window, where he could watch, and laugh at, what went on!

'This amazing declaration was reported to the Acting Chief Administrator, and the Acting Chief Political Officer, but no action was taken against the Governor. Only one interpretation can be placed on such leniency.'

Patterson, as quoted in Chapter 5, wrote elsewhere of the Arab attacks, 'There can be no doubt that it was assumed in some quarters that when trouble, which had been deliberately encouraged, arose, the Home Government, embarrassed by a thousand difficulties at its doors, would agree with the wire-pullers in Palestine, and say to the Jewish people that the carrying out of the Balfour Declaration, owing to the hostility displayed by the Arabs, was outside the range of practical politics.'"

SOURCE: Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (pp.203-204)

[3] “...the Palestinian anti-colonialist movement was deformed by racism. The distorted national struggle expressed itself in anti-Jewish slogans (‘Palestine is our country and the Jews are our dogs’), followed up by attacks upon Jewish passers-by and store-owners, and eventually in mob violence akin to the all-too familiar pogrom [ = unprovoked racist attack against unarmed Jews, with the semi-unofficial assistance of the (in this case British) authorities[1a]]. These attacks cannot, however, in any way be assimilated to straightforward anti-Semitic outrages which had their source in classical European coordinates of the Jewish problem, but should be seen as a deformed expression of national consciousness, all the more understandable as the Zionist leaders clearly allied with the British while the latter encouraged this distraction from the anti-imperialist struggle.”

SOURCE: Weinstock, N. 1979. Zionism: False Messiah. London: Ink Links Ltd. (pp.166-167)

[3a] Weinstock, N. 1979. Zionism: False Messiah. London: Ink Links Ltd. (p.108)

[4] Zionism: False Messiah. (p.51)

[4a] “...the Arab historian Philip Hitti testified in 1946 before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry that ‘There is no such thing as ‘Palestine’ in history, absolutely not.’ Earlier, in 1937, a local Arab leader appearing before the Peel Commission similarly declared, ‘There is no such thing [as Palestine]. ‘Palestine’ is a term the Zionists invented.’ ...During the [illegal] Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and the Egyptian occupation of Gaza, the [so-called] Palestinian Arabs had [likewise] not claimed a distinct peoplehood or sued for self-determination.”

SOURCE: Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.288)

[5] To learn more about the Roman Final Solution against the Jews in the first and second centuries, why it happened, and why you never heard about it, read chapter one of The Crux of World History: Vol. 1. The Book of Genesis: The Birth of the Jewish People (2005, Francisco Gil-White), entitled:

CHAPTER 1. The Roman ‘Final Solution’ in the first and second centuries; why it happened, and why you never heard about it.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/crux01.pdf

[6] Carroll, J. 2001. Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. (p.90)

[7] Wolfe, R. 2003. The origins of the messianic ideal. New York: J-Rep. (PP.58-59)

[8] Robert Wolfe puts the Jews at 10% of the Roman Empire. This, of course, is a relatively uncertain estimate. The lowest estimate I have seen is William Horbury’s at 8-9%. Some estimates say higher than 10%.

Wolfe, R. 2003. The origins of the messianic ideal. New York: J-Rep. (p.59)

Horbury, W. 1991. "The Jewish dimension," in Early Christianity: Origins and evolution to AD 600. In honor of WHC Frend. Edited by I. Hazlett. London: SPCK. (p.40)

Concerning the rapidly growing size of the Jewish population, consider the following, from historian of Judaism Shaye Cohen:

“Many gentiles, both men and women, converted to Judaism during the last centuries bce and the first two centuries ce. Even more numerous, however, were those gentiles who accepted certain aspects of Judaism but did not convert to it. In polytheistic fashion they added the God of Israel to their pantheon and did not deny the pagan gods. Throughout the Roman empire various practices of Judaism found favor with large segments of the populace. In Rome many gentiles observed the Sabbath, the fasts, and the food laws; in Alexandria many gentiles observed the Jewish holidays; in Asia Minor many gentiles attended synagogue on the Sabbath… The phenomenon of [the so-called] ‘God-fearers’ implies… [that a]ncient Judaism was visible and open to outsiders. Gentiles were able to enter synagogues and witness the Jewish observances. Josephus insists that Judaism has no mysteries, no secrets that it keeps hidden from curious observers (Against Apion 2.8, & 107). This claim is not entirely true, but it is essentially correct.”

SOURCE: Cohen, S. J. D. 1987. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. (pp.55-56)

The Jews were extremely popular with the pagan masses of the first century, when Christianity began spreading like wildfire by selling itself as an improved form of Judaism. To learn more about why Judaism was so popular, read chapter one of The Crux of World History: Vol. 1. The Book of Genesis: The Birth of the Jewish People (2005, Francisco Gil-White), entitled:

CHAPTER 1. The Roman ‘Final Solution’ in the first and second centuries; why it happened, and why you never heard about it.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/crux01.pdf

[9] Johnson, P. 1987. A History of the Jews. New York: Harper & Row. (pp.142-143)

[10] “. . .the Philistines came from Caphtor (possibly Crete). They are mentioned in Egyptian records as one of the Sea Peoples that invaded Egypt in about 1190 BC after ravaging Anatolia, Cyprus, and Syria. After being repulsed by the Egyptians, they occupied the coastal plain of Palestine from Joppa (modern Tel Aviv–Yafo) southward to the Gaza Strip. The area contained the five cities (the Pentapolis) of the Philistine confederacy (Gaza, Ashkelon [Ascalon], Ashdod, Gath, and Ekron) and was known as Philistia, or the Land of the Philistines. It was from this designation that the whole of the country was later called Palestine by the Greeks.”

SOURCE: "Philistine." Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica Online.http://proxy.library.upenn.edu:8420/eb/article-9059701
[Accessed August 23, 2005].

[10a] To see a map of the remarkably small territory of the Philistines, visit:http://www.bible-history.com/maps/philistines.html

[10b] Historian of the Greek Ptolemaic empire in Egypt, Günther Hölbl, writes as follows:

"Ptolemaic Syria, officially known as the province of 'Syria and Phoenicia' and by modern scholars as Coele Syria, was over the long term the second largest foreign possession of the Nile empire next to Cyrenaica. Aside form the value of this area as a military buffer-zone, the Ptolemies thus also had access to the very valuable cedar trees of Lebanon and controlled the caravan trails, the so-called spice route, which began in Saudi Arabia and ended in Coele Syria. The country itself was rich in agricultural products such as grain, oil and wine."

SOURCE: Hölbl, G. 2001. A history of the Ptolemaic Empire. New York: Routledge. (p.23)

[11] “Where did the name Palestine come from?”; Early History, Palestine Origin; Palestine Facts.http://palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_name_origin.php

[12] British Mandate of Palestine | From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine

[12a] “How did the Arab territory of Transjordan come into being?”; British Mandate Transjordan; Palestine Facts.http://palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_transjordan.php

[13] Rapoport, L. 1999. Shake heaven and earth: Peter Bergson and the struggle to rescue the Jews of Europe. Jerusalem and New York: Gefen. (p.192)

[14] Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League: “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”

SOURCE: Source: Howard M Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, (New York: Knopf, 1979), p. 333

[15] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.288)

[16] http://www.un.int/palestine/PLO/PNA2.html

[17] http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp

[17a] To see that the extermination of the Israeli Jews was a point of Arab pride, visit:

Although Israel suffered terrorist attacks from its Arab neighbors during these years, when they staged a full-scale military provocation, the US refused to help. From from "IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL? A Chronological Look at the Evidence"; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm#1967

[17b] Israel has, more than once, returned territories that her Arab neighbors lost during attempted exterminations of the Israeli Jews. The 1967 war would have been another case in point because the Israelis offered the West Bank and Gaza back in exchange only for a promise of future peace, but the Arabs refused to give even this, so the Israelis, who had not asked for a war of extermination against them, ended up in control of the West Bank and Gaza.

"It was not clear how military victory could be turned into peace. Shortly after the war's end Israel began that quest, but it would take more than a decade and involve yet another war before yielding any results. Eshkol's secret offer to trade much of the newly won territory for peace agreements with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria was rejected by Nasser, who, supported by an emergency resupply of Soviet arms, led the Arabs at the Khartoum Arab Summit in The Sudan in August 1967 in a refusal to negotiate directly with Israel."

SOURCE: "Labour Rule After Ben-Gurion: Troubled victory" "Israel." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2003. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 2 Nov, 2003http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=109507

[18] The Jordanian/Egyptian occupation of the West Bank and Gaza territories was illegal because the UN had designated these territories in 1947 for the creation of a ‘Palestinian Arab state’ in a vote that passed legally at the UN but that the Arabs, who preferred to attempt an extermination of the Israeli Jews than create a ‘Palestinian Arab state,’ rejected. In 1964, as we've seen in the main text, the PLO would further correct the UN by explaining in its founding charter that these territories originally slated for a ‘Palestinian Arab state’ were not Palestinian.

Below is the map of the 1947 UN partition.

( click to enlarge )

[18a] The Jews had a right to settle in the West Bank and Gaza because these territories were included even in the British-reduced definition of 'Palestine' of 1922. The Jewish families that had settled there before 1948 were killed or had to flee when the Jordanians and Egyptians occupied these territories in the War of 1948.

[18b] After the Six-Day War, the US put pressure on Israel to relinquish the territory gained, even though it knew it was indispensable to Israeli defense; from "IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL? A Chronological Look at the Evidence"; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm#1967b

[19] Translation: The Associated Press, December 15, 1998, Tuesday, AM cycle, International News, 1070 words, Clinton meets with Netanyahu, Arafat, appeals for progress, By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent, EREZ CROSSING, Gaza Strip. [Emphasis added]

Article 9. . .says that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.”

Article 15 says it is “a national duty to repulse the Zionist imperialist invasion from the great Arab homeland and to purge the Zionist presence from Palestine.”

Article 22 declares that “the liberation of Palestine will liquidate the Zionist and imperialist presence and bring about the stabilization of peace in the Middle East.”

[20] Blumberg, A. 1985. Zion before Zionism 1838-1880. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. (p.19))

[21] Zion before Zionism (pp.23-24)

[22] Zion before Zionism (p.x)

[23] SOURCE: Bat Ye'or (2002) Jews and Christians under Islam: Dhimmitude and Marcionism. Published in French as Juifs et chrétiens sous l’islam, Dhimmitude et marcionisme [Commentaire, N°97, Printemps 2002]http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/by_dhimmitude_marcionism_en.pdf

[24] Weinstock, N. 1979. Zionism: False Messiah. London: Ink Links Ltd. (p.142)

[25] Sachar, Howard Morley - A history of Israel : from the rise of Zionism to our time / Howard M. Sachar. 1982, c1979. (p.204)

[25a] On this question, consider the following:

"Reference to Arab immigration into Palestine during the 1920s is made as well in the British mandatory government's annual compilation of statistical data on population. The Palestine Blue Book, 1937, for example, provides time series demographic statistics whose annual estimates are based on extrapolations from its 1922 census. The footnote accompanying the table on population of Palestine reads:

'There has been unrecorded illegal immigration of both Jews and Arabs in the period since the census of 1931, but it is clear that, since it cannot be recorded, no estimate of its volume is possible.'

The 1935 British report to the League of Nations noted that:

'One thousand five hundred and fifty-seven persons [1557] (including 565 Jews) who, having made their way into the country surreptitiously, were later detected, were sentenced to imprisonment for their offence and recommended for deportation.'

The number who 'made their way into the country surreptitiously' and undetected was neither estimated nor mentioned."

SOURCE: "The Smoking Gun: Arab Immigration into Palestine, 1922-1931"; The Middle East Quarterly; WINTER 2003 • VOLUME X: NUMBER 1; by Fred M. Gottheilhttp://www.meforum.org/article/522#_ftnref28

This data is actually relatively useful. The authors of the Palestine Blue Book say that "if illegal immigration cannot be recorded, no estimate of its volume is possible." Seems a rather extreme statement. No estimate? On the contrary, I think that the data for caught illegal immigrants in the year 1935 can be used to motivate productive inferences.

Let us consider. Under what conditions would the numbers of Jews and Arabs caught immigrating illegally be roughly equal? Well, this would happen if the numbers of Arabs and Jews immigrating illegally into 'Palestine' were roughly equal, and if the British were trying to find illegal Arab immigrants about as hard as they were trying to find the Jewish. Under such conditions, the Arab and Jewish numbers of people caught would be roughly equal.

As we've seen, even anti-Zionist historians concede that the British were inciting Arab terrorist violence against the Jews, and British officer Lieutenant Colonel John Patterson accused at the time that the British were doing this in order to ruin the Zionist project (see footnote 2). Patterson's hypothesis is consistent with how the British reduced the size of Palestine to restrict the area of Jewish settlement, and also with how they kept reducing the legal immigration quotas for Jews. What follows? That it must have been British policy to try harder when it came to catching illegal immigrants who were Jewish. Assuming equal numbers of Arab and Jewish illegal immigrants, this leads to the expectation that in the sample of illegal immigrants caught, there will be more Jews than Arabs.

Now, we know that very large crowds of Jews must have been coming into British Mandate 'Palestine' illegally because the data referred to above is from the year 1935, which is two years after Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany, and therefore a time when the incentive for Jews to immigrate to 'Palestine' was strong. There was a well organized Jewish effort called Ha'apala (Aliya Bet) to bring Jewish immigrants to 'Palestine' illegally, and it had begun already the year before, in 1934. So in fact we expect that there will be many more Jews than Arabs in the sample of illegal immigrants caught by the British authorities.

Unless...the crowds of Arab illegal immigrants were bigger still, and much bigger. Only in this case would we expect to find, in the year 1935, and knowing what British policy was, more Arabs than Jews in the sample of illegal immigrants who got caught.

And look: We learn above that in 1935, the British reported to the League of Nations that out of 1557 illegal immigrants caught, just 565 (36%) were Jews! It is a safe conclusion, from these numbers, that the crowds of Arab illegal immigrants were large indeed. So there is little question that the Arab immigrants overwhelmed the native Arab population, just as the immigrant Zionists overwhelmed the native Jewish population.

[26] To learn about the contrasting values of the attacking Arabs and the defending Jews in the War of 1948, read:

"WAS THERE A MASSACRE AT DEIR YASSIN?: The pro-PLO camp says yes; the historical documentation says otherwise"; Historical and Investigative Research; 20 November 2005; by Francisco Gil-White.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/deir-yassin.htm

 Part 3 -  Did the Zionist Jews take something away from the Arabs in British Mandate 'Palestine'?

Understanding the Palestinian Movement

An HIR Series, in four parts
Historical and Investigative Research - 02 June 2006
by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov3.htm
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
3		Did the Zionist Jews take something
		away from the Arabs in British Mandate
		'Palestine'?
_________________________________________________________

█ Introduction

█ Arabs oppress Arabs in British Mandate ‘Palestine’

█ The “Palestinian Arab national movement” -- a terrorist racket run by the Arab feudal lords

█ The Zionist Jews were much nicer to the Arab poor than the Arab ruling elite

█ Conclusion
___________________________________________________________

Introduction

It is a widespread belief that the Zionist Jews came to ‘Palestine’ to dispossess and oppress the Arabs who lived there. The truth, however, is that the Jews came to buy land from anyone who wanted to sell, and that the Arabs in ‘Palestine’ have only ever been oppressed by other Arabs.

I shall make my case by quoting extensively from an anti-Zionist historian: Nathan Weinstock. Why? Because if the data collected by an anti-Zionist (despite his loud protestations) shows the Zionist Jews to be innocent, then the case against the Zionist Jews falls on its face.

First, let us get a picture for how the Arabs oppressed the Arabs in British Mandate ‘Palestine.’

Arabs oppress Arabs in British Mandate ‘Palestine’ 
_________________________________________________

According to Nathan Weinstock in Zionism: False Messiah, what he calls “the Palestinian Arab national movement” before WWII was not in fact a popular movement: “the leadership,” Weinstock explains, “was in the hands of the big landowners of the a’yan stratum (urban notables).”[1] To see what these landowners were like, consider that elsewhere in his book (p.59) Weinstock explains that the a’yan stratum is synonymous with the effendis. What were they like?

“At the summit of the social pyramid, which was characterized by a rigid, traditional structure, was the effendi group, that special phenomenon of the Middle East, the ‘city notable, an absentee landlord whose main function is to provide credit and who does not interest himself at all in farming.’ They belonged to the handful of leading families who derived their incomes from the estates cultivated by the fellahin and from usury. Not that they turned their noses up at property speculation. The indifference they showed for the lot of the peasantry, their economic activities (investments) and their parasitic role therefore made them akin, to a certain degree, to the comprador bourgeoisie of the colonial countries.”[2]

Above Weinstock compares the effendis to “the comprador bourgeoisie.” Weinstock is a Marxist and this is part of his jargon: “In Marxist terms, comprador bourgeoisie exist in developing countries and act in their own economic interests, often sacrificing national interests and the interests of their country’s proletariat in order to do so.”[3] A comprador bourgeois, in other words, is a pitiless exploiter of the poor. So, according to Weinstock, “the Palestinian Arab national movement” was led by people who were specialists in the oppression of the common Arab folk.

We may wonder, however, whether “comprador bourgeoisie” is really the proper term for a social scientist to use when making reference to the Arab ruling class in British Mandate ‘Palestine.’ The term used for European absentee landlords who were not much interested in the productivity of agriculture but lived off the land worked by serfs who didn’t own their parcels, and who were in a perpetual state of debt-slavery due to the usury of the same landlords, is feudal lords. I see no reason to apply a different term when the exact same structure is repeated in the Middle East. So, where Weinstock refers to this arrangement as “quasi-feudal,” I would take the “quasi” out.[4]

Weinstock explains that the Arab poor, who were referred to as fellahin, “formed the mass of the population (nearly 70 per cent), living in the country’s 850 Arab villages,” and Weinstock remarks on “the fierce exploitation which they suffered at the hands of the landowners and usurers.”[5] Says Weinstock:

“The fellahin, attached to the land, were mercilessly exploited by the big landowners, and burdened with levies and taxes. In the village, the peasant was at the mercy of the sheikh, the governor, the farmer-general to whom the taxes were farmed out, and the merchants and usurers who vied with each other for the prize of crushing him. Traditionally the villager had only one means of escaping this misery: nomadism, the peasant’s last resort.”[6]

Elsewhere he remarks:

“In 1936...the average debt run up by an Arab peasant family -- £25-30 a year -- was equivalent to or in excess of its annual income. In these conditions there was hardly any hope of escaping recurrent indebtedness. ...Interest rates, usually 30 per cent, sometimes went as high as 50 per cent. In such conditions, and taking into account the parasitic mentality of the landowners who considered their lands above all as a speculative investment, Arab farming remained refractory to technical progress.”[7]

In other words, the peasant Arabs, the fellahin, were abused serfs.

The main point is this: since “the landed aristocracy had practically undivided control over political life,”[8] we should expect that what Weinstock calls “the Palestinian Arab national movement” was a cynical ploy by the Arab feudal landlords to increase the value they were getting from oppressing the common Arab folk. And, indeed, this is precisely what Weinstock documents.

The “Palestinian Arab national movement” -- a terrorist racket run by the Arab feudal lords
__________________________________

How did the big Arab landowners react to Zionist immigration? Weinstock explains:

“When the question of the acquisition of land by the Zionist organizations in Palestine is broached, it is usually not stated that these land transactions are to be explained by the big Arab landowners’ eagerness to sell their property. Furthermore, these purchases led to an extremely lucrative wave of property speculation: the price of a dunam near Rishon-le-Zion, originally 8 shillings, had gone up to £P10-£P25 by 1931. The Zionists certainly paid dearly for their Holy Land. The high prices sales, which brought a fortune to the usurious, parasitic effendi class, proved disastrous for the fellahin who were expelled from the estates they had worked on.”[9]

So the Arab peasants who had been “mercilessly exploited by the big landowners” were now simply cast out as the Arab landowners rushed to make a killing by selling the land to the Zionist Jews, who would pay top dollar for it. But Weinstock explains that these same landowners were the leaders of the supposed “Palestinian Arab national movement.” Doesn’t this mean that there was really no such movement?

Why then would Weinstock insist on the existence of this supposed movement? Because Weinstock is a committed anti-Zionist, and no matter what the facts, he will spin them with an anti-Zionist interpretation. Thus, he asserts that,

“Massive dispossession of the fellahin was the essence of the Palestinian problem, both as a national and a social issue. Certain authors try and skirt round this direct consequence of the Zionist enterprise...”[10]

According to Weinstock, then, “certain authors try and skirt round” the supposed fact that the problems of the Arabs in this part of the world are supposedly the fault of the Jews. Here Weinstock is denying what he himself has documented: that the essence of the ‘Palestinian’ problem was the exploitation and oppression of the Arab fellahin by the Arab effendis. The Zionist Jews simply came to buy land -- they did not create the conditions of extreme exploitation and oppression that the Arab feudal lords perpetuated in British Mandate ‘Palestine.’ Who could the Zionist Jews buy land from? Most of the fellahin did not have title to any land, so the Zionists bought land from those who had title: the effendis. There was absolutely nothing that the Zionist Jews could do about this particular state of affairs, and so when Weinstock blames the Zionist Jews for the conditions of the fellahin he plumbs the depths of absurdity. But this is the only strategy open to an anti-Zionist, because the Zionist Jews, unlike the Europeans who conquered the Americas, did not come to steal and exterminate, but to offer good money in order to purchase legally from those who had title.

What is most amazing is that even Weinstock concedes that many “fellahin [were] displaced following purchases made by non-Jews, say, for example, an Arab middleman or moneylender who then sold the property acquired to a Zionist purchasing body,” and many other displaced Arab poor had been “peasants who were not share-croppers ...[but] smallholders,” which is to say peasants with actual title to their tiny plots of land, whose plots were also bought by Arab middlemen and resold to the Zionists.[11] This is quite significant because, according to Weinstock himself, the large Arab landowners were charging with ‘treason’ any smallholders who tried to make a decent buck selling their land to the Zionists. In order to prevent such sales, the large Arab landowners directed terrorist attacks against the smallholders; this allowed the feudal lords to buy the plots of smallholders for a song and resell them at very high prices to the Zionists. Weinstock explains:

“...whilst in public these [Arab] leaders stepped up their incendiary attacks on Zionism, denouncing any transfer of ancestral soil to the Jews as a betrayal, they secretly enriched themselves by means of the very operations which they so furiously attacked. The fanatical braggadocio was designed for the gallery. It made it possible to win the support of the masses. It also, no doubt, served other less avowable goals. Under nationalist pressure, the small Arab landowners no longer dared to sell their land openly to the Jews. During the 1936-39 Revolt Husseini’s guerillas actually executed ‘traitors,’ but ‘at the same time a close relative of the Mufti was doing a brisk trade in precisely such allegedly criminal deals, but with a notable difference, for this person used to force sales from Arab small-holders at niggardly prices and then resell to the Jews at the usual exorbitant rates...’ In other words, hyper-nationalist propaganda became a lucrative industry, indeed even an American-style racket, for the Arab gentry.”[12]

It is hardly any fun arguing against Weinstock when he makes my arguments for me.

The references to “Husseini” and “the Mufti” above are to the same person: Hajj Amin al Husseini, a scion of one of the biggest feudal landed families in British Mandate Palestine, whom the British made Mufti of Jerusalem in 1920 after he demonstrated that he could organize massive terrorist riots against the Jews.[12a] We shall take a closer look at him in Part 4. What matters here is that Hajj Amin al Husseini was the supreme leader of what Weinstock calls the “Palestinian Arab national movement.” So clearly there was no such movement. What existed in ‘Palestine,’ by Weinstock’s own admission, was a racist movement against all Jews, Zionist or not, fomented by the feudal Arab landowners who didn’t want the Arab poor getting any ideas from the Jews, who were mostly socialists. In order to prevent this, any Arabs who tried to be friendly with the Zionist Jews risked execution. Hajj Amin even executed his own cousin for sympathizing with the Zionists, as Weinstock himself explains.[13]

The other contributing factor to the problems of the Arab poor was that the land which was not being hogged by the Arab effendi class was being hogged by the British Empire. This is made evident when Weinstock explains that “popular discontent reached such a pitch that the British authorities had to offer to put Crown lands at the disposal of the evicted share-croppers.”[14]

The Zionist Jews were much nicer to the Arab poor than the Arab ruling elite
________________

It was in fact the Zionist Jews who showed the most compassion for ordinary Arabs, even though the Arab leadership was mobilizing these ordinary Arabs in terrorist attacks against the Jews. As historian Anita Shapira documents,

“The defensive ethos [of the Zionist Jews] was distinguished by two parallel approaches to the Arabs. One related to the Arabs as individuals, while the other viewed them as a people. The existence of those two approaches helped fashion a distinction between relating to the Arab as a human being and, contrastingly, seeing him as a member of a people vying for control of Palestine. While in the first domain, Jews were obliged to adhere to the acceptable canon of [Jewish] ethical tenets in interpersonal behavior, in the second sphere, the constraints of national interest served to release persons from compliance with those rules. Thus it was argued that one should act to promote the rights of the Arab worker and better his lot and avoid placing him at any disadvantage. Yet at one and the same time, it was permissible to demand of the Arab that he renounce his exclusive claim to Palestine. It was prohibited to expel the fellahin; but it was perfectly alright to purchase land from the effendis, even if that involved eviction of fellahin from the soil.”[15]

As is common for Jewish historians, Anita Shapira -- considered a Zionist -- sounds critical of the Zionist movement. What is her criticism? Namely, that the Zionist Jews did not save the fellahin from the big Arab landowners!

This is typical: it is hard for Jews to conclude that they have been sufficiently ethical precisely because Judaism is an ethical civilization. Shapira herself points out that there are “three sins” that “rather than commit, a Jew preferred to be killed” -- these are “‘idol worship’...along with bloodshed and incest.”[16] That’s interesting: rather than shed blood, it is orthodox for a Jew to allow himself to die (contrast this with Muslims, for whom it is orthodox to slaughter the recalcitrant infidel[17]). One dramatic example of this aspect of Jewish ideology was given in the Middle Ages, when more than 1000 Jews were trapped in a bishop’s palace in the city of Mainz by a mob of ‘Crusaders,’ and, as they awaited the carnage that was to come, these Jews decided to commit suicide rather than take enemy lives in self-defense.[18] This same ideology is what made Jewish self-defense in British Mandate ‘Palestine’ very difficult, because even after repeated Arab terrorist attacks the Jews living there found it hard to take arms to protect themselves, and so it was a long time until they did. Anita Shapira’s book is an attempt to understand this psychology of the Jews that delayed an effective self defense -- at the cost of many Jewish lives -- for a good long time.

The peculiarities of Jewish ideology thus explain the stark difference between the Zionist Jews and the Arab effendi class. The Zionist Jews “argued that one should act to promote the rights of the Arab worker and better his lot,” whereas the Arab effendi class couldn’t run out of ways to oppress the Arab fellahin and executed them if they tried to get rich -- as the big landowners were getting rich -- by selling land to the Zionist Jews. Moreover, to Jewish ethics, “It was prohibited to expel the fellahin” whereas the Arab landowners were evicting them. Even though many Zionists held that Jewish land should only be worked by Jewish labor, many others disagreed, and in those plots where the Arab landowners did not evict the fellahin, as Shapira herself admits, “Arab workers stayed on to work in the Jewish-owned fields.”[19]

So Shapira’s implied judgment against the Zionist movement is entirely unfair: the Zionist Jews were not God. They were not responsible for, nor could they easily solve, the problems in Arab society that the Arab ruling class had created for the Arab poor. And her gesture of deference to the Arabs in her repeated implication that there was an Arab nationalist movement contradicts the facts: there was a racist anti-Jewish movement built on the traditional anti-Jewish racism rampant all over the Muslim world ever since the Muslim expansion began (see Part 1). This was a fire whose flames were fanned by the Arab ruling class in British Mandate ‘Palestine,’ which got rich directing terrorism towards both ordinary Arabs and Jews.

But though the Zionist Jews were not God, the overall assessment must still be that they were on balance a blessing to the fellahin. Nathan Weinstock himself explains why:

“...the repercussions on the Arab economy of the inflow of capital into Palestine and the country’s economic expansion were felt in the long run. Agriculture advanced considerably during this period, when there were the beginnings of an evolution towards intensive farming. Arab orchards, which covered an area of 332,000 dunams in 1921, spread over 832,000 dunams in 1942. Cattle-breeding and poultry-rearing made rapid headway; there was an increase of the order of 60 per cent in 13 years. The orange-groves developed at great speed: 22,000 dunams of citrus fruit in 1922, 144,000 dunams in 1937. Vegetable production increased almost tenfold between 1920 and 1938. On the whole, however -- and it was here that the immobilisme and the backwardness of the social structures really told -- Arab agriculture continued to suffer from a shortage of capital.

On the other hand, in a period of economic boom and massive immigration, the scarcity of man-power and the intense tempo of construction favoured the taking on of Arab workers. Moreover, a growing number of Palestinian Arabs found jobs in the public services: 18,000 in 1930, more than 30,000 in 1945. One should add to this those employed by concessionary companies, concerns in which the majority of capital was Jewish but which were bound under their statutory provisions to take on a certain proportion of Arab workers.

An Arab industry likewise made its appearance...”[20]

So, many of the displaced Arab fellahin found jobs elsewhere in the booming economy that the Zionist Jews created. If that were not so, there would not have been a massive immigration of Arabs into British Mandate ‘Palestine,’ as documented in Part 2 of this series. These new jobs that the displaced fellahin were getting wereoutside the feudal economy that had oppressed them.

Conclusion___________

In conclusion, one cannot argue that the Arabs in British Mandate ‘Palestine’ were dispossessed by the immigrant Jews (Much of the land was purchased by Jews at exorbitant prices). The Arab poor had already been dispossessed by the brutally exploitative and oppressive ruling Arab effendi class, who took zero interest in the welfare of commoners just as the European medieval feudal lords also did. By contrast, it is not difficult to argue that the Arab fellahin benefited, on the whole, from Zionist immigration, and one can find the argument even in the work of an anti-Zionist historian such as Nathan Weinstock, who nevertheless would like to argue that the Zionist Jews were doing harm.

It is true that many Arabs lost their land and/or homes during the war of 1948 (Israel’s War of Independence). But this, once again, was not the fault of the Zionist Jews, as will be shown in Part 4 of this series. (It must also be taken into account, that the Arabs have expelled a million Jewish people from their countries and confiscated their homes and assets since the early 1900. Over half a million of those Jews expelled from Arab lands settled in Israel).

The next piece in this series is:

“How did the 'Palestinian movement' emerge? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm

__________________________________________________________

Footnotes and Further Reading
__________________________________________________________

[1] Weinstock, N. 1979. Zionism: False Messiah. London: Ink Links Ltd. (p.156)

[2] Zionism: False Messiah (p.156)

[3] Comprador bourgeoisie | From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprador

[4] Zionism: False Messiah (p.157)

[5] Zionism: False Messiah (p.157)

[6] Zionism: False Messiah (p.52)

[7] Zionism: False Messiah (pp.157, 159)

[8] Zionism: False Messiah (p.157)

[9] Zionism: False Messiah (p.161)

[10] Zionism: False Messiah (pp.161-62)

[11] Zionism: False Messiah (p.162)

[12] Zionism: False Messiah (pp.163-64)

[12a] You will find the most complete documentation here:

“HOW DID THE ‘PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT’ EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm

Some of this material was originally published here:

“Anti-Semitism, Misinformation, And The Whitewashing Of The Palestinian Leadership”; Israel National News; May 26, '03 / 24 Iyar 5763; by Francisco J. Gil-Whitehttp://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=2405

[13] “Fawzi El-Husseini, a cousin of the Mufti’s, who sympathized with Zionism...became the spokesman of a small section of the urban bourgeoisie anxious to collaborate with the Zionists. This option cost him his life: he was assassinated in November 1941.” -- Zionism: False Messiah (p.190)

[14] Zionism: False Messiah (p.162)

[15] Shapira, A. 1992. Land and power: The Zionist resort to force 1881-1948. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. (pp.356-57)

[16] Land and power (p.64)

[17] In order to understand better this aspect of Muslim ideology, and to see its Qur’anic justification, you may consult the following two pieces:

1) This is an analysis of prominent Muslim thinker Alija Izetbegovic, whom the Western media lionized as a supposed ‘moderate’:

Who was Alija Izetbegovic: Moderate Democrat or Radical Islamist?; from “WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN BOSNIA?: Were the Serbs the criminal aggressors, as the official story claims, or were they the victims?”; Historical and Investigative Research, 19 August 2005; by Francisco Gil-Whitewww.hirhome.com/yugo/ihralija1.htm#part1

2) Historian Bat Ye’or, and expert on Islam, explains the meaning of ‘jihad’ -- a central concept in Muslim ideology.

Bat Ye'or (2002) Jews and Christians under Islam: Dhimmitude and Marcionism. Published in French as Juifs et chrétiens sous l’islam, Dhimmitude et marcionisme [Commentaire, N°97, Printemps 2002]http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/by_dhimmitude_marcionism_en.pdf

French original:http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/commmentaire_spring2002.htm

[18] “The crusaders were unleashed, storming through the city [of Mainz], looking for ‘the circumcised.’ The Jews who had eluded crusaders, or bribed them during the early phase of the Rhineland incursion, had been succeeded, especially in Speyer and Worms, by Jews who were murdered in cold blood. By the time of Mainz, crusader ferocity was at its peak, fueled by a cross-inspired righteousness… More than one thousand men, women, and children huddled in the courtyard of the archbishop’s palace [this man appears genuinely to have tried to save their lives]. They knew very well what had happened elsewhere in the preceding weeks, how bribes and flight had failed, finally, to protect even children. In Mainz, Jews had time to reflect on what was coming, and they knew that the only possible escape was through apostasy. Some few took that way out, but to most conversion to Christianity was more unthinkable than ever…

Solomon bar Simson wrote:

The hand of the Lord rested heavily on His people, and all the Gentiles assembled against the Jews in the courtyard to exterminate them… When the people of the Sacred Covenant saw that the Heavenly decree had been issued and that the enemy had defeated them and were entering the courtyard, they all cried out together—old and young, maidens and children, menservants and maids—to their Father in Heaven… ‘There is no questioning the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He and blessed be His Name, Who has given us His Torah and has commanded us to allow ourselves to be killed and slain in witness to the Oneness of His Holy Name…’

Then in a great voice they all cried out as one: ‘We need tarry no longer, for the enemy is already upon us. Let us hasten and offer ourselves as a sacrifice before God. Anyone possessing a knife should examine it to see that it is not defective, and let him then proceed to slaughter us in sanctification of the Unique and Eternal One, then slaying himself—either cutting his throat or thrusting the knife into his stomach.’”

SOURCE: Carroll, J. 2001. Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. (pp.261-262)

[19] Shapira, A. 1992. Land and power: The Zionist resort to force 1881-1948. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. (p.65)

[20] Zionism: False Messiah (p.160)

Part 4 -  How did the 'Palestinian movement' emerge?

Understanding the Palestinian Movement

An HIR Series, in four parts
Historical and Investigative Research - 13 June 2006
by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 

Note: an earlier (and less complete) version of this material
was published by Israel National News on 26 May 2003 

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
4		How did the 'Palestinian movement'
		emerge? The British sponsored it.
		Then the German Nazis, and the US.
_________________________________________________________

The current leader of PLO/Fatah, Mahmoud Abbas, was trained by the Mufti of Jerusalem -- Hajj Amin al Husseini, creator of PLO/Fatah -- to continue the German Nazi Final Solution. Hajj Amin al Husseini was, with Adolf Eichmann, the top leader of the German Nazi Final Solution.

Mahmoud Abbas is the protégé of one of the greatest butchers of Jews in history.

__________________________________________________________

█ Introduction

█ Why did the British encourage and aid the anti-Jewish terrorist violence of the Arabs in British Mandate ‘Palestine’? -- John Patterson’s hypothesis.

█ The British, after encouraging the anti-Jewish violence of the early 1920s, rewarded the Arab terrorists and took measures against the Jews.

█ The British encouraged the anti-Jewish violence of the late 1920s, took measures against the Jews, and again rewarded the Arab terrorists.

█ The Arab terrorist and British puppet Hajj Amin al Husseini becomes a British-Nazi puppet

█ Hajj Amin al Husseini, leader of the ‘Palestinian movement,’ becomes an architect of Adolf Hitler’s Final Solution, and then continues the extermination effort beyond the World War, helping create Al Fatah, the controlling core of the PLO.

█ The next great patron of Hajj Amin’s movement became...the United States.
__________________________________________________________

Introduction

As you may recall from Part 1, even anti-Zionist historian Nathan Weinstock recognizes that the ‘Palestinian movement’ in British Mandate ‘Palestine’ was not exactly admirable. It was, he says, “deformed by racism.” Racism against whom? The British? That should be the first hypothesis for a movement that Weinstock calls “the Palestinian anti-colonialist movement,” because the British were the occupying imperialist/colonialist power in charge. But no, as Weinstock himself concedes, this movement was racist against the Jews (Zionist or not, mind you). Weinstock’s admission that the ‘Palestinian’ movement’s flag was anti-Jewish racism is important because it comes from someone who would like to defend the justice of this movement.

Precisely in order to defend this movement, Nathan Weinstock would like you to think that the violent racism of so-called ‘Palestinian’ Arabs was “understandable” because, he claims, the Zionist Jews and the British were “clearly” allied with each other against the Arabs (see Part 1). This representation is absurd. As Weinstock himself admits,

1) the British imperialists were helping the Arabs kill Jews (see Part 1 for Weinstock's admission; British support for anti-Jewish terrorist violence is documented below);

and as Weinstock also admits,

2) the Arab feudal lords in ‘Palestine’ incited racist violence against the Jews in order to create a climate to intimidate fellow Arabs who might want to get along with the mostly socialist Jews, the better to further exploit the downtrodden Arab commoners (see Part 3)

Therefore, it is amazing that Weinstock, who says he is an anti-imperialist Marxist, should not defend the interpretation that the British ruling class and the Arab ruling class were allied against ordinary Arabs and Jews. After all, as I also show in Part 3, the Zionist Jews had no role in oppressing the Arabs; on the contrary, the Zionist Jews were indirectly and directly helping to end the oppression which the Arab (effendi) feudal lords made the ordinary (fellahin) peasant Arabs to suffer.

Nathan Weinstock would also like you to think that this allegedly ‘Palestinian’ movement was an expression of a Palestinian Arab “national consciousness.” But this is quite impossible. As I show in Part 1, the ideology of this movement was just plain old anti-Jewish racism, of the traditional sort in the Muslim world, and quite comparable -- notwithstanding Weinstock’s loud protestations to the contrary -- to the traditional European anti-Jewish racism that produced the Shoah (Holocaust). Moreover, as I show in Part 2, ‘Palestine’ as such never existed, and neither was there ever any such thing as an ‘Arab Palestinian’ population with a ‘Palestinian identity,’ much less Weinstock’s alleged “national consciousness.” Most of the so-called ‘Palestinian Arabs,’ as I also show in Part 2, were immigrants from elsewhere attracted by the economic boom that the Zionist Jews created when they transformed a desolate land into an oasis (few people are even aware of this).

So, although Nathan Weinstock may refer to the racist movement that killed innocent Jews in British Mandate ‘Palestine’ as the “Palestinian anti-colonialist movement,” the well-documented facts suggest that this movement had absolutely nothing to do with fighting colonialism. On the contrary, the aristocratic Arab leaders of repeated terrorist violence against ordinary Arabs and Jews were directly sponsored and assisted by the colonialist British Mandate government and the colonialist British military, as I will document below in some detail. It was this British sponsorship and assistance that initially set in motion the so-called ‘Palestinian movement.’ Later, the Nazis would also sponsor it. And after that, the United States.

Anybody who chooses to defend the ‘Palestinian movement’ should do so in full awareness of the facts documented below.

Why did the British encourage and aid the anti-Jewish terrorist violence of the Arabs in British Mandate ‘Palestine’? -- John Patterson’s hypothesis_________________________________________

Repeatedly, there were outbursts of massive anti-Jewish terrorist violence in British Mandate ‘Palestine.’ Kenneth Levin writes about the anti-Jewish riots as follows:

“The British, in the postwar years [after WWI], were attempting to maintain their Middle East territories with very limited forces and were indeed concerned with minimizing local unrest. But, of course, this does not account for Mandate officers working as agents provocateurs and stirring up anti-Jewish violence or for British authorities failing to quell Arab riots when they were fully able to do so. Nor does it explain the [British Mandate] Military Administration’s preventing local Jewish units -- elements of the Jewish Battalions -- from coming to the defense of the Jews of Jerusalem. [The Revisionist Zionist leader Vladimir Zeev] Jabotinsky, who tried to organize defense, was arrested by the British and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. He was soon released but only in the context of an amnesty extended also to the rioters. The British chose to construe the Jewish units’ attempts to defend the Jews of Jerusalem as an intolerable breach of military discipline and disbanded the units.”[1]

Why were British officers in British Mandate ‘Palestine’ “working as agents provocateurs and stirring up anti-Jewish violence”? And why did they actively sabotage Jewish self-defense and blame the Jewish victims? According to Lieutenant Colonel John Patterson, a dissenting voice within the Military Administration of British Mandate ‘Palestine,’ his fellow Britons were trying to derail the Zionist project.

Who was this John Patterson? Kenneth Levin explains that, during World War I,

“Lieutenant Colonel John Patterson, a non-Jewish British officer who had commanded the Zion Mule Corps in Gallipolli [a Jewish force that fought with distinction on the British side], was subsequently appointed commander of the 38th Jewish Battalion and led the battalion in the [WWI] Palestine campaign [during which the British wrested control of ‘Palestine’ from the Ottoman Turks].”[2]

In other words, Patterson 1) worked closely with the Jews and had sympathy for them; 2) was an eyewitness to the terrorist Arab attacks against the Jews in British Mandate 'Palestine'; and 3) was an insider eye-witness to the behavior of his fellow British officers in the context of the same terrorist attacks.

“Patterson wrote extensively of the anti-Jewish depredations to which his [Jewish] troops, and the Jewish population of Palestine, were subjected by the British military’s forces in Palestine under Allenby (the Egyptian Expeditionary Force) and later by the Military Administration. These depredations emanated both from the command structure and, in the wake of evident command tolerance, from the rank and file. With regard to Arab attacks on the Jews in April, 1920, in Jerusalem, Patterson, referring to the assault as ‘the Jerusalem pogrom’ [pogrom = unprovoked racist attack against unarmed Jews, with the semi-unofficial assistance of the authorities[3]], noted the Military Administration’s encouragement of the violence, its failure to intervene to stop it, its blocking of intervention by Jewish troops, its attempts to use the Arab assault as an excuse to curb Zionist programs, and its scapegoating of Jabotinsky [who merely tried to defend the Jews].”[4]

The assessment of modern researchers concerning the 1920 terrorist riots, labeled by many the “al-Nebi Musa disturbances,” agrees with John Patterson’s contemporary judgment. Here is historian Anita Shapira, writing in 1992:

“The al-Nebi Musa disturbances took place under the unblinking eye of the British military regime that was charged with exercising supreme authority in Palestine... Modern research on the military regime has shown that its leaders, Field Marshal Edmund Allenby (at the time commander of the Egyptian Expeditionary Forces) and Major General Sir Louis Bols, the chief administrator, were, to put it mildly, quite cool toward the pro-Zionist policies followed by the British government and even tried their hand at various manipulations aimed at bringing about what they considered a necessary volte-face. They wished to...be rid of the Zionists. There is evidence pointing to the fact that this position on the part of the heads of the army was made known to Arab leaders and was taken into account by them. ...Just before the al-Nebi Musa celebrations, the army had been ordered to leave Jerusalem, a decision described by the Palin report on the riots, an indubitably anti-Zionist account, as a serious mistake.”[5]

But was this really a “mistake”? Or was it deliberately intended to produce loss of Jewish life?

There had just been a horrific incident of Arab terrorist violence against Jews in the Galilee (Tel Hai), and it appears that the aforementioned Allenby and Bols -- in charge of the British military administration of Palestine -- were warned by the Zionist leadership that there was a “strong potential for violence” at the al Nebi Musa festival.[6]So if “just before the al-Nebi Musa celebrations,” as we see above, “the [British] army had been ordered to leave Jerusalem,” and if the British desire to be “rid of the Zionists... was made known to Arab leaders,” then obviously the British authorities did not make a “serious mistake”: they were trying to produce anti-Jewish bloodshed. Indeed, it is generally agreed that the British were looking for ways to kill Jews, because even an anti-Zionist historian such as Nathan Weinstock concedes that the British “encouraged” (his word) the anti-Jewish Arab violence the he nevertheless defends (see Part 1 for his concession).

Kenneth Levin reproduces some of what eyewitness Lieutenant John Patterson wrote concerning the anti-Jewish terrorist violence during the al-Nebi Musa “celebrations” of 1920. Here it is below:

“A veritable ‘pogrom’ such as we have hitherto only associated with Tsarist [Czarist] Russia,[3] took place in the Holy City of Jerusalem in April, 1920, and as this was the climax to the maladministration of the Military Authorities, I consider that the facts of the case should be made public...

The Balfour Declaration [which gave Britain the responsibility of establishing a Jewish homeland in British Mandate ‘Palestine’]...was never allowed [by the Military Administration] to be officially published within the borders of Palestine; the Hebrew language was proscribed; there was open discrimination against the Jews; the Jewish Regiment was at all times kept in the background and treated as a pariah. This official attitude was interpreted by the [Arab] hooligan element and interested [Arab] schemers in the only possible way, viz., that the military authorities in Palestine were against the Jews and Zionism, and the conviction began to grow [within Arab circles] that any act calculated to deal a death blow to Zionist aspirations would not be unwelcome by those in authority...

Moreover, this malign influence was sometimes strengthened by very plain speaking. The Military Governor of an important town was actually heard to declare...in the presence of British and French Officers and of Arab waiters, that in case of anti-Jewish riots in his city, he would remove the garrison and take up his position at a window, where he could watch, and laugh at, what went on!

This amazing declaration was reported to the Acting Chief Administrator, and the Acting Chief Political Officer, but no action was taken against the Governor. Only one interpretation can be placed on such leniency.”[6]

Patterson’s interpretation was that his own superiors in the British government and military were trying to destroy the Zionist movement. Patterson was not a rocket scientist: as he himself pointed out, he was concluding the obvious. The British treaty obligations under the Balfour Declaration, and later also under the League of Nations, were to “secure the establishment of the Jewish national home,” and “safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of [British Mandate] Palestine.”[8] But these are obligations that the overwhelming majority of Britons in power did not want to fulfill, so they were hoping that by fomenting widespread Arab violence against the Jews they could declare in public that the Zionist project had to be abandoned for being politically unrealizable. Wrote Patterson:

“There can be no doubt that it was assumed in some quarters that when trouble, which had been deliberately encouraged, arose, the Home Government, embarrassed by a thousand difficulties at its doors, would agree with the wire-pullers in Palestine, and say to the Jewish people that the carrying out of the Balfour Declaration, owing to the hostility displayed by the Arabs, was outside the range of practical politics.”[9]

Supporting Patterson's hypothesis is that the al-Nebi Musa riots took place in April 1920, right when the San Remo Conference of the same month was meeting to decide whether Great Britain would honor the commitment previously expressed in the Balfour declaration to assist the creation of a Jewish homeland. The riots did not succeed in derailing the official commitment of the British government, but the violence was used by the Mandate authorities, anyway, to reduce the permitted quota of Jewish immigration, arguing that the Arabs would otherwise be difficult to control.[10]

There is no shortage of evidence to suggest that John Patterson’s hypothesis is correct: the British officers in Palestine were working overtime to destroy any possibility of Arab-Jewish coexistence so they could abort the Zionist project. Below, I will review this evidence, but before I do, let me point out that even anti-Zionist historian Nathan Weinstock agrees with the main point: “The British,” he writes, “in accordance with a pattern which we shall encounter with every Arab revolt in Palestine, reacted...by making concessions to Arab opinion.”[11]

The British, after encouraging the anti-Jewish violence of the early 1920's, rewarded the Arab terrorists and took measures against the Jews
__________________________

Nathan Weinstock himself points out that “[Hajj] Amin al Husseini, the future Mufti of Jerusalem, ...led the rioters and harangued the crowd assembled for the Nebi Musafestivities.”[12] Historian Uri Milstein explains what the consequence of the 1920 al-Nebi Musa terrorist riots were for the chief terrorist in charge:

“Haj Amin [al Husseini] was the prime instigator of the 1920 riots against the Jews of Jerusalem. For that, he was tried and sentenced to ten years imprisonment, but British intelligence officers helped him flee. One year later, the Jewish High Commissioner, Herbert Samuel, pardoned him, had him brought back to Palestine and appointed him Mufti of the city -- even though he was not one of the three candidates for the office -- due to pressure from British officials and officers of the Cairo school, which was fostering Arab nationalism in the hope of making it a basis for British control of the region.”[13]

We’ve seen above that before the al-Nebi Musa terrorist riots of 1920, the British authorities made it clear to the leaders of the riots that they could kill Jews with impunity. This means they were communicating principally with Hajj Amin al Husseini, because Hajj Amin was “the prime instigator of the 1920 riots.” After these riots, the British did not prosecute the chief offender Hajj Amin (their ally); on the contrary, they accused the Jews of defending themselves and then made Hajj Amin, the terrorist leader, the Mufti of Jerusalem.

The British policy can hardly be clearer.

This Hajj Amin al Husseini was a total cynic, and his incitement of the Arabs against the Jews -- which relied on mobilizing the widespread contempt and hatred that the Arabs already felt, traditionally, for the Jews (see Part 1) -- was not part of a policy to defend the Arabs from the British, much less from the Zionist Jews. Rather, his anti-Jewish racist incitement -- launched in collusion with the British -- was meant to create a climate of intimidation such that fellow Arab smallholders would not dare improve their economic well being by selling their modest plots of land to the Jews, lest they be identified as ‘traitors’ and selected for execution by Hajj Amin’s terrorists. In this way, Hajj Amin’s family -- one of the largest landowners in the area -- could buy these small plots at bargain prices and then resell them to the same Zionist Jews at absurdly high prices (see Part 3).

Hajj Amin was made Mufti of Jerusalem immediately after “a second outbreak of [Arab anti-Jewish terrorist] violence [that] occurred on May 1, 1921, and [which] continued for several days.”[14] The man directly in charge of giving Hajj Amin bureaucratic authority was Herbert Samuel, who, as Uri Milstein points out above, wasJewish. This “Herbert Samuel, one of the leading figures in the British Liberal party,” had been “appointed high commissioner for Palestine in June 1920,” in the wake of the al-Nebi Musa terrorist riots of that year.[15] Herbert Samuel’s elevation of the terrorist Hajj Amin to the position of Mufti of Jerusalem, according to the Jewish Virtual Library, was officially to reward Hajj Amin for having supposedly quieted the new racist violence of 1921.[16] But, naturally, Hajj Amin went on to organize moreanti-Jewish terrorist violence with the bureaucratic authority and budget that was made available to him in his position as Mufti (as we shall see below).

It is important to point out the parallel. In recent years Yasser Arafat -- leader of the antisemitic terrorist organizations Al Fatah and the PLO -- was given more and more power inside the Jewish state, by Jewish leaders, in exchange for his supposed efforts to combat anti-Jewish Arab terrorism, when in fact Yasser Arafat -- obviously -- continued to direct anti-Jewish terrorism all the time, and much more effectively thanks to the power which Jewish leaders in Israel gave him. (It pays to learn history, because patterns such as these can be noticed, and a healthy skepticism about current Jewish leaders can then be nurtured, the better to defend the Jewish people from their own leaders.[17] )

The 1921 Arab terrorist riots against the Jews were “even more violent” than the riots of 1920, so those Jews in Palestine who had come there fleeing the Czarist Russian pogroms were aghast that “even a high commissioner who was Jewish...had adopted policies similar to those of the [violently antisemitic] Russian authorities.”[18]

“Once again, ‘Arabs murdered and looted, and the Jews are the ones held up as guilty and put on trial.’ The authorities came out with an explanation that the disturbances had been the result of clashes between Jewish communist and anticommunist demonstrators on May Day. Jews regarded this as sheer nonsense. How could an internal political quarrel among Jews result in horrible murders [by Arabs against Jews] in a hotel for immigrants in Jaffa? Government communiqués spoke about clashes between Jews and Arabs and tried to play down the fact that the attacks had come solely from the Arab side. Arab policemen had taken active part in the riots and went unpunished. On this occasion as well, the British were quick to arrest Jews who, in defending themselves and their families, had injured their attackers. Stolen Jewish property was not returned, the murderers of Brenner and his friends were not brought to justice. The British put a stop to [Jewish] immigration, and even Jews already on their way to Palestine were returned to their ports of embarkation. [Herbert] Samuel’s speech on June 3, 1921 completed the picture: Once again, the rioters were being encouraged by the authorities -- violence was rewarded, the victims punished.”[19]

Herbert Samuel’s report contained all sorts of “political concessions to the Arabs, and the following year those concessions, as well as the de facto detachment of Transjordan from the Mandate, were formalized in a White Paper issued by [Winston] Churchill.”[20] In other words, the British used the anti-Jewish Arab terrorist violence -- which they had themselves fomented -- as an excuse to reduce by 75% the territory in which the Jews could settle; this they did by redefining the territory called ‘Palestine’ (before this redefinition ‘Palestine’ had included all of ‘Transjordan,’ which later became the kingdom of Jordan; see Part 2). The fact that Winston Churchill put his stamp on all this, from his position as Secretary of State for the Colonies, is perfectly in character, given Winston Churchill’s well documented pro-fascist sympathies.[21] As Churchill’s recent biographer Paul Addison has put it, “With fascism as such…he had no quarrel.”[22] But what explains Herbert Samuel’s behavior?

It is important to point out that when the Turks governed Jerusalem the local leaders had very little power: “Moslem affairs, the administration of Moslem religious funds, the running of Moslem courts, were handled by Constantinople [Istanbul].” The British transformed all this and gave Husseini much power over the Muslim population. They created a “Supreme Moslem Council, consisting of a president and four members, to take complete charge of the Waqf-Moslem religious funds, the Shariah (religious) courts, the Mosques, and Moslem social services. Hajj Amin became President.” Hajj Amin also controlled the funds for orphans and beyond this received a subsidy from the British government. But it is not just a question of funds. There is also the matter of the bureaucratic authority that Hajj Amin was given: “The [Supreme Muslim] Council had in its hands the appointment of preachers and officials of the Mosques; teachers at the religious seminaries; judges of the Shariah courts...; and all officials of Moslem institutions throughout the country.”[23]

A Library of Congress study on the history of Israel explains the consequences of Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill's reforms, implemented by the High Commissioner Herbert Samuel:

“By heading the SMC [Supreme Muslim Council], Hajj Amin controlled a vast patronage network, giving him power over a large constituency. This new patronage system competed with and threatened the traditional family-clan and Islamic ties that existed under the Ottoman Empire. Traditional Arab elites hailing from other locales, such as Hebron and Haifa, resented the monopoly of power of the British-supported Jerusalem-based elite...

Tension between members of Arab elites was exacerbated because Hajj Amin, who was not an elected official, increasingly attempted to dictate Palestinian politics. The competition between the major families and the increased use of the Zionist threat as a political tool in inter-elite struggles placed a premium on extremism. Hajj Amin frequently incited his followers against the Nashashibis [a competing clan] by referring to the latter as Zionist collaborators.”[25]

I remind you that Hajj Amin, whom the British pardoned after he organized mass murders of Jews, and whom they then made Mufti of Jerusalem, before making him the head of the Supreme Muslim Council, was “not [even] one of the three candidates for the office” of Mufti. Clearly, then, the British were going quite out of their way, and flexing their every muscle, to transform Arab politics in such a way that those extreme anti-Jewish racists who also attacked fellow Arabs with terrorism ended at the top, and were provided with the vast political, economic, and bureaucratic power needed to mobilize anti-Jewish racism. The point? As we see above, to prevent Arab leaders who wanted to get along with the Zionist Jews from having any influence, thus derailing the Zionist project.

Anita Shapira explains that “there is a debate among historians about Herbert Samuel’s policies”; some wish to see Samuel as well meaning, whereas others see him as “fostering the radical forces among [the Arabs] at the expense of the moderates. In the eyes of Jewish contemporaries at the time, Samuel was viewed almost as a national traitor...”[26] In my view the latter assessment is correct, except that I don’t think Samuel was almost a traitor.

Strong support for my view comes from Herbert Samuel’s subsequent behavior on the eve of the Holocaust: acting as a representative of the Jews before the British government, he kept important information secret that could have saved thousands of European Jewish lives.[27] Samuel consistently cooperated with the antisemitic feelings of the majority of British officials -- he was loyal to them, not to the Jewish people.

Herbert Samuel is supposed to have been “a proclaimed Zionist,”[28] and this naturally has something to do with the fact that he was “one of the architects of the Balfour Declaration.”[29] But in the final analysis, taking his whole career into account, if it is proper to call Herbert Samuel a ‘Zionist’ then we urgently need a more precise vocabulary.

The British encouraged the anti-Jewish violence of the late 1920's, took measures against the Jews, and again rewarded the Arab terrorists
_________________

Kenneth Levin remarks on the great difference between Herbert Samuel and his non-Jewish successor:

“Samuel was replaced by Lord Herbert Plumer, who generally resisted further backtracking from the Mandate even in the face of Arab pressures, and Plumer’s three years in office saw a marked decrease in violence. This reflected a pattern that has been noted by a number of historians who have written on the Mandate: Appeasement tended to result in increased Arab violence as violence was perceived as yielding rewards, while a more steadfast course and rejection of concessions in the face of violence typically yielded more peaceful interludes.”[24]

When Plumer left, the British once again began allowing Arab violence against the Jews. Anita Shapira writes:

“Beginning in 1928, there was mounting tension between Jews and Arabs. After years [the three Plumer years] in which the British had imposed impeccable public order and Jews, men and women alike, had been able to walk freely throughout Palestine in complete safety and without fear, the situation now changed. There were more and more incidents of rape of young Jewish women in Jerusalem by Arabs and an increasing number of robberies in cities and towns everywhere in the country. ...the background to these incidents was criminal, not nationalist.”[31]

In 1929, the next year, there was a Zionist Congress in which Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann remained in control despite widespread criticism of his acquiescence to any and all anti-Jewish measures decided by the British government, measures that violated not only the spirit but the letter of Britain’s treaty obligations to the Jews.[32]Feeling the climate change, and sensing an easy prey, in the same year of 1929, Hajj Amin al Husseini once again mobilized Arab mob violence against the Jews in British Mandate Palestine. Writes Kenneth Levin:

“...shortly following the 1929 [Zionist] Congress, the de facto leader of the Palestinian Arabs, Amin al Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, orchestrated large-scale assaults on the Jews of the Yishuv [Jewish community], attacks that began in Jerusalem and soon spread throughout the country. In Hebron, one of the hardest hit targets, more than sixty Jews were killed and the rest of the community was forced to flee.”[33]

Anita Shapira tells it like this:

“The [1929] riots were accompanied by militant Arab slogans such as ‘The law of Muhammad is being implemented by the sword,’ ‘Palestine is our land and the Jews our dogs,’ ‘We are well armed and shall slaughter you by the sword.’ There were also brutal acts by Arabs for the apparent sake of cruelty, such as the killings in Hebron, where small children were tortured by their murderers before being murdered. The dread that the Arabs were planning to annihilate the entire Jewish community -- men, women, and children -- in one concentrated burst of violence surfaced for the first time in the wake of the August 1929 disturbances [which]...swept with a fury through Jewish settlements and neighborhoods throughout the length and breadth of the country. The danger now appeared to threaten the very survival of the entire Jewish community.”[34]

What did the British do? As in 1920-21, the British cooperated with the Arab anti-Jewish violence. Writes Kenneth Levin:

“For days, British forces across the country did virtually nothing to stop the carnage. The commission appointed by then Colonial Secretary Lord Passfield to investigate the violence submitted a report that was in key respects a reprise of earlier such exercises: It acknowledged that the Arabs were fully responsible for the violence but then recommended restrictions on Jewish immigration and land purchases to placate the Arabs.

The leaders of the Yishuv and the Zionist leadership outside the Mandate protested and were supported by sympathetic segments of the British public. The League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission also condemned the report as offering recommendations that violated Britain’s Mandate obligations. Still, the Labor government in London imposed a moratorium on [Jewish] immigration in May, 1930, and the following fall the government issued the so-called Passfield White Paper spelling out further anti-Zionist steps. Protest against the halt to immigration and the White Paper obliged the government to lift the former and to offer some softening ‘clarifications’ of the latter, but the White Paper was not rescinded.”[35]

Anita Shapira relays the opinion of the Jewish press at the time, which characterized the Arab leaders as

“...agitators and instigators, who by lying and deceit whipped up the masses into a religious frenzy and stirred up uncontrollable urges. They were hypocrites who tried to play both sides of the fence, enjoying the profits of land sales to the Jews, while inciting the Arabs against them in order to strengthen their hold over the masses.”[36]

I think this contemporaneous analysis, made by the Zionist Jews at the time, gets it just right. The same Jews, however, failed to recognize the depth of traditional anti-Jewish racism among ordinary Arabs, which is precisely what the Arab leaders, chiefly Hajj Amin al Husseini, were relying on to incite them against the Jews. In consequence, many Jews naively increased their efforts to find common cause with the Arab workers against the Arab feudal lords (effendis).

“...now more than ever in the past, Jews sought to be active in the Arab sector and made efforts to find ways to establish ties and advance cooperation. Socialists found it natural to channel the desire for action among Arabs by trying to organize Arab workers.”[37]

This naiveté can profitably be compared to how many Jews today on the ‘left’ increase their efforts to accommodate their Arab enemies even as Arab violence against the Jews mounts. History repeats itself, because the culture of both Jews and Arabs is transmitted vertically from parents to children, so we see similar self-destructive responses on the part of Jews mobilized in the face of similarly intractable terrorist racism on the part of Arabs. We must not forget, however, the role played by Jewish leaders without any real concern for the lives of Jews, on the one hand, and the role played by thoroughly cynical Arab leaders backed by the great powers, on the other, because these aspects, too, have been reproduced from the past into the present.[38]

The Arab terrorist and British puppet Hajj Amin al Husseini becomes a British-Nazi puppet
______________________________

In 1933 Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany.

In 1936, once again sensing a political opportunity, and an easy prey, Hajj Amin did what he did best: mobilize terrorist violence against the Jews. The first outburst of violence took place 19 April 1936: the murder of Jews in Jaffa in retaliation against Arabs who had supposedly been assaulted by Jews in Tel Aviv. But no Arabs had been assaulted in Tel Aviv: this was just Arab terrorist incitement, once again.[40] At first the unrest was in the hands of upstart young Arabs but very soon Hajj Amin decided that he wanted to direct any and all violence against the Jews himself.

“...On April 25 [1936], the Mufti [Haj Amin] induced several of Palestine’s clan leaders to establish an Arab Higher Committee, with himself as president. It was this group that supported his call for the nonpayment of taxes after May 15, to be followed by a nationwide strike of Arab workers and businesses.

...Haj Amin loosed a series of grim warnings of the ‘revenge of God Almighty.’ The initial outburst of Arab violence was then followed by a mass strike against the government’s immigration policy... Enforced by the Mufti’s strong-arm men, the work stoppage paralyzed government and public transportation services, as well as Arab business and much of Arab agriculture...”[41] (my emphasis)

This strike, which Hajj Amin, as we see above, enforced with violence against ordinary Arabs, “crippled the economy of the entire Mandate,” and punished the Arabs especially.[42] Soon, “al Husseini unleashed another wave of Arab massacres of Jews as well as attacks on Jewish farms that entailed wide destruction of crops.”[43] The strike and accompanying terrorist violence was called the ‘Arab Revolt.’

“...By midsummer 1936 the intensity of the fighting mounted as Arab irregulars poured into the hill country around Jerusalem, into Galilee and Samaria. A majority of them at first were local Palestinians recruited by Haj Amin’s agents. But soon ‘Committees for the Defense of Palestine’ were established in neighboring Arab lands. Syrian and Iraqi volunteers began arriving in Palestine at the rate of two or three hundred a month. Their leader, Fawzi al-Qawukji, played a vital role in the ensuing civil war... He was a compact, sandy-haired man in his early forties when the civil war began, gruff, vigorous, and endowed with an unquestionable dynamism that he cultivated in open imitation of his hero, Adolf Hitler. During the summer of 1936 it was Qawukji who organized military training among the Arab nationalists, imposing a single, unified command over the disparate rebel forces and helping smuggle in Axis [i.e. Nazi German and fascist Italian] weapons. His guerilla technique rarely varied. It took the form of night assaults on Jewish farms, the destruction of cattle and crops, the murder of civilians.”[44] (my emphases)

As we see above, this terrorist ‘Arab Revolt’ was supported by the fascists in Germany and Italy. Historian Howard Sachar explains the context leading up to the ‘Arab Revolt’:

[Quote from Howard Sachar begins here]

“With his impressive African staging bases in Libya, Ethiopia, and Italian Somaliland, [Italian fascist leader, and Hitler ally, Benito] Mussolini could indeed begin to look westward toward French Tunisia, and eastward toward Egypt and the Levant, the historic destinations of the merchant fleets of Venice, Genoa, and Trieste. A high-powered Italian short-wave radio station in Bari broadcast Arabic-language propaganda nightly to the Mahgreb [Muslim North Africa] and the Middle East, striking systematically at Britain’s and France’s tenure in their Arab lands of occupation. Posturing as the ‘friend and protector of Islam,’ the Duce at the same time left no doubt that he regarded the Mediterranean as mare nostrum -- our (Italy’s) sea.

The Italian campaign for influence in the Moslem world was shrewdly reinforced by Nazi Germany. Hitler may have evinced little enthusiasm for projecting German territorial claims into the eastern Mediterranean; it was understood that the Middle East was Italy’s sphere of expansion. But it was the Führer’s intention to erode the Allied position in a region widely considered to be the very pivot of Anglo-French imperial and defensive power. By 1935, therefore, the Nazi propaganda bureau was subsidizing a wide variety of Middle Eastern courses, institutes, and journals, and spending millions of marks on the ‘educational’ activities of German cultural and press attachés in the Islamic world. Beginning in 1938, the newly equipped German radio station at Seesen transmitted propaganda to the Middle East in all the languages of the area (except, of course, Hebrew). Combined with the broadcasts of radio Bari and Spain’s Radio Sevilla [run by the Spanish fascist regime of Francisco Franco], these programs won a large and appreciative reception in the Arab world. So did the ‘goodwill’ visits to the Middle East of eminent Nazi figures, among them Dr. Hjalmar Schacht and Baldur von Shirach.

One particularly successful Axis technique of winning favor among the Arabs had its basis in ideology. German journalists and diplomats constantly drew parallels between Nazi Pan-Germanism and ‘the youthful power of Pan-Arab nationalism [which] is the wave of the Arab future.’ More significantly, the Arabs were reminded of the enemies they shared in common with the Nazis. Even in the mid-1930s, when Berlin exercised a certain restraint in ventilating its animosity against Britain and France, Nazi German diplomats evinced no hesitation whatever in publicizing the Nazi anti-Jewish campaign. Hardly a German Arabic-Language newspaper or magazine appeared in the Middle East without a sharp thrust against the Jews. Reprints of these strictures were widely distributed by the [Jerusalem] Mufti’s Arab Higher Committee. Upon introducing the Nuremberg racial laws in 1935, therefore, Hitler received telegrams of congratulation and praise from all corners of the Arab world. The Palestine newspaper al-Liwa eagerly borrowed the Nazi slogan ‘One Country, One People, One Leader.’ Ahmed Hussein, leader of the ‘Young Egypt’ movement, confided to the Lavoro Fascista that ‘Italy and Germany re today the only true democracies in Europe, and the others are only parliamentary plutocracies.’ A delegation of Iraqi sporting associations, returning from a trip to Germany in September 1937, expressed their profound admiration for ‘National Socialist order and discipline.’ During a visit to Transjordan in 1939, Carl Raswan, a noted German-born journalist, was struck by the near-unanimity of Arab opinion that only ‘Italy and Germany were strong, and England and the whole British Empire existed only by the grace of Mussolini and Hitler.’ Throughout the Arab Middle East, a spate of ultra-right-wing political groupings and parties developed in conscious imitation of Nazism and Italian fascism.”[45]

[Quote from Howard Sachar ends here]

In the wake of the ‘Arab Revolt’ the British yet again appointed a Commission to ‘investigate’ and, naturally, proposed punishing the Jews and rewarding the Arab terrorists with a partition plan that would give the Jews just 4 percent of the original Mandate territory for a Jewish state, giving all of Transjordan, and the rest of ‘Palestine’ for an Arab state. The Zionist leader Ben Gurion decided to accept this outrage (though the League of Nations was protesting that it violated Britain’s Mandate obligations to the Jews). Hajj Amin, however, led the Arabs in a total refusal, which reveals that the ‘Palestinian movement’ was never interested in a Palestinian Arab state, but merely in preventing the Jews from having any state -- even if it was just 4% of the original Mandate territory -- where the Jewish people could live free of persecution.[46] Such views agreed perfectly with the ideology of Hajj Amin’s Nazi sponsors, which was also the ideology of Hajj Amin: death to all the Jews.

“Shortly afterwards, the Arabs, under the Grand Mufti [Hajj Amin] and with Nazi encouragement, initiated open rebellion in the Mandate. They targeted Jews, British officials and troops, and Arabs considered too accommodating of the Jews. Over the next two years, the Mufti’s forces killed more than four hundred Jewsand several thousand Arabs.”[47] (my emphasis)

Hajj Amin and his thugs were killing many more Arabs than Jews; the leaders of the ‘Palestinian movement’ have always been as bad or worse for the Arabs they pretend to lead than they are for the Jews (and this means that those who support the ‘Palestinian movement’ have never done so out of compassion for these Arabs).

The British reaction to this violence, after they put it down, was, once again, to punish the Jews, and in 1939, right before the Holocaust was to begin, they sharply restricted Jewish immigration to ‘Palestine’ and committed themselves to creating an independent Arab state in ‘Palestine’ within ten years. This new policy has been called the Chamberlain White Paper or the MacDonald White Paper (Malcolm MacDonald was at this time the Colonial Secretary), and it constituted a “death warrant for much of European Jewry.”[48]

It is hard to exaggerate the extremity of the British position. After the outbreak of the World War, there were brutal British searches for weapons in Jewish settlements, and they denied entry to ‘Palestine’ to three ships that came full of Jewish immigrants escaping Adolf Hitler.

“The heads of the [Jewish] community and the Jewish Agency beseeched the [British] authorities to allow the Jews to stay in Palestine, even if in detention, until the authorities were convinced that these people were, in truth, genuine refugees and not dangerous spies, as the British alleged. Their pleas were in vain. The high commissioner, Harold MacMichael, was determined to send them to Mauritius [an island in the middle of nowhere, in the Indian Ocean] in order to set an example for all to see: The intended message was that there was no sense in continuing with illegal immigration. The passengers onboard the Milos and the Pacific, and some of those on the Atlantic, were transferred to the deportation ship Patria. Hagana members decided to prevent the sailing of the Patria by planting a bomb aboard that would cause damage to the ship [Hagana = initially ineffective Jewish self-defense militia created in response to Arab terrorist attacks, but which later formed the backbone of what became the Israeli Defense Forces]. They hoped that this delay would facilitate a change in decisions in London. The result was disastrous: The blast was much larger than expected; and enormous hole was blown in the ship, and nearly three hundred passengers perished.”[49]

The tragedy of the Patria, however, did cause Winston Churchill to intervene and the survivors from this accident were allowed to stay. But Winston Churchill’s compassion, if that’s what it was, could not be moved with respect to the rest of the refugees:

“The rest of the Atlantic refugees, who were interned in the meantime in Atlit, were brought by force aboard two deportation ships and sent on a long journey to Mauritius. Their evacuation was accompanied by a show of brutal force that made even many of the British police officers flinch. General Nim, with whom Shertock had discussed the matter, expressed shock that the Jews could dare damage a much-needed ship like the Patria during time of war. Yet significantly, he was not perturbed in the least by the allocation of ships and other resources for sending refugees to Mauritius.

...[The British] conducted searches for weapons in Jewish settlements...in the early years of the war as if it was the principal military mission of the hour. ...The Jews did not use weapons against the British, and all victims killed during the aggressive searches were Jewish.”[50]

Hajj Amin al Husseini, leader of the ‘Palestinian movement,’ becomes an architect of Adolf Hitler’s Final Solution, and then continues the extermination effort beyond the World War, helping create Al Fatah, the controlling core of the PLO
____________________________________________________

Because the so-called ‘Arab Revolt’ had been directed in part against the British and supported by the Nazis, the British for once moved against Hajj Amin, and he became a fugitive. A furious 1948 New York Post article against the ex-Mufti, by Immanuel Velikovsky, states that

“...The ex-Mufti escaped from Jerusalem and Palestine in the garb of a woman. In Syria he was on Mussolini’s payroll. When, with the beginning of the war, his position in Syria, a French mandate, became ‘insecure,’ he escaped to Iraq. There he worked hard and succeeded in [organizing a coup,] bringing Iraq into the war against the Allies, the declaration of war having been made on May 2, 1941. At that time the Nazis’ entered Greece and Egypt.”[51]

While in Iraq, Hajj Amin organized a pogrom like the ones he had been organizing in 'Palestine' against the Iraqi Jewish community, which ended some 2600 years of Jewish life in Iraq. This pogrom was called the Farhud.[52] Velikovsky continues,

“When the [Iraqi] revolt was crushed (mainly by the Jewish volunteers from Palestine), the ex-Mufti escaped to Iran and hid himself in the Japanese Embassy there. From Teheran he escaped to Italy, where his arrival was announced by the Fascist radio as a ‘great and happy event’; in November, 1941, he arrived in Berlin and was received by Hitler. In 1942 the ex-Mufti organized the Arab Legion that fought the American invasion in Africa...”[53]

The substance of Hajj Amin’s 28 November 1941 interview with Adolf Hitler is preserved in a Nazi document that summarizes the exchange between the two men:

“The Führer then made the following statement to the Mufti, enjoining him to lock it in the uttermost depths of his heart:

1. He (the Führer) would carry on the battle to the total destruction of the Judeo-Communist empire in Europe.

2. At some moment which was impossible to set exactly today but which in any event was not distant, the German armies would in the course of this struggle reach the southern exit from Caucasia.

3. As soon as this had happened, the Führer would on his own give the Arab world the assurance that its hour of liberation had arrived. Germany’s objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power [my emphasis]. In that hour the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman for the Arab world. It would then be his task to set off the Arab operations which he had secretly prepared. When that time had come, Germany could also be indifferent to French reaction to such a declaration.”[54]

Hajj Amin al Husseini meets with Hitler
(Berlin, 1941)

The same document states that the Mufti, “was fully reassured and satisfied by the words which he had heard from the Chief of the German State.” That is, he was “fully reassured and satisfied” that Hitler would (1) help him carry out the destruction of all Jews living in the Arab sphere and, (2) based on that Final Solution, make him “the most authoritative spokesman in the Arab world.” Once again, this shows that Hajj Amin al Husseini was not interested in defending any Arabs, but rather interested in killing Jews. Hajj Amin would now demonstrate his special predilection with a vengeance by leading Adolf Hitler’s extermination program against the European Jews.

This has been well established.

Dieter Wisliceny was one of the most important deputies of Adolf Eichmann, the same Eichmann who was officially the chief architect of Adolf Hitler’s Final Solution (Wisliceny was eventually tried for war crimes in Czechoslovakia and executed).[55] At Adolf Eichmann’s own war-crimes trial in Israel, the earlier Nuremberg testimony of Dieter Wisliceny was presented. This included Wisliceny’s remarks about Hajj Amin al Husseini. Strictly speaking, these were Wisliceny’s reactions to somebody else’s report of what Wisliceny had said about Hajj Amin. The only thing that Wisliceny corrected was the other person’s mistaken beliefs that 1) Wisliceny had described Eichmann as a German born in Palestine, and that 2) Wisliceny had described Hajj Amin as a close personal friend of Heinrich Himmler. So Wisliceny agreed with all of the following:

“The Mufti [Hajj Amin] is a sworn enemy of the Jews and has always fought for the idea of annihilating the Jews. He sticks to this idea always, also in his talks with [Adolf] Eichmann ... The Mufti is one of the originators of the systematic destruction of European Jewry by the Germans, and he has become a permanent colleague, partner and adviser to Eichmann...in the implementation of this programme.”[56] (my emphasis)

In other words, Hajj Amin al Husseini, at the very top of the Nazi leadership, planned with Adolf Eichmann from the very beginning, and then supervised and directed as “permanent colleague, partner and adviser to Eichmann,” the World War II extermination of the European Jews. That Hajj Amin “always fought for the idea of annihilating the Jews” is important, because it suggests that somebody needed convincing. In fact, as historian Tobias Jersak explains,

“Since the 1995 publication of Michael Wildt's documentation on the SS's Security Service (Sicherheitsdienst SD) and the 'Jewish Question', it has been undisputed that from 1933 Nazi policy concerning the 'Jewish Question' aimed at the emigration of all Jews, preferably to Palestine. If their life were made miserable enough, Nazi planners calculated, the Jews would emigrate 'voluntarily' and leave their property behind. Moreover, the Ha'avara transfer agreement granted 'privileges' for those Jews willing to emigrate to Palestine, allowing them to transfer at least part of their property. Correspondingly, the Zionist movement was intentionally supported, whereas assimilatory associations in Germany were 'hindered as much as possible, in order to cause them to align themselves with the Zionist camp'.”[56a]

What caused the German Nazis to change their mind from a policy of kicking the Jews out to one of killing them all? The scholars Michael Marrus and Robert Paxton explain that “until the autumn of 1941... no one defined the final solution with precision, but all signs pointed toward some vast and as yet unspecified project of mass emigration.”[56b] So what happened in the autumn of 1941? As mentioned earlier, “in November, 1941, [Hajj Amin al Husseini] arrived in Berlin and was received by Hitler.”[53] According to the documentation presented at the Eichmann trial, the decision to exterminate the European Jews was taken at the Wannsee Conference that took place January 20, 1942, which is less than two months after Hitler met Hajj Amin.[56c]

Hajj Amin was a genocidal antisemite who didn’t have anything to learn from Adolf Hitler and Adolf Eichmann. On the contrary, it may have been Eichmann and Hitler who learned a thing or two from Hajj Amin. After all, it was Hajj Amin who, when he arrived in Berlin in 1941, had some twenty years years of direct experience organizing terrorist violence against the Jews. So Hajj Amin's arrival in Berlin is perfectly timed to support the view, expressed by Adolf Eichmann's lieutenant Dieter Wisliceny, that it was Hajj Amin who convinced the Nazis to opt for total slaughter as opposed to expulsion.

But Hajj Amin did not merely probably suggest, and definitely organize and direct from start to finish the German Nazi Final Solution as co-chief executive with Adolf Eichmann. He was also eager to soak his own hands, literally, in Jewish blood, so he took personal and direct responsibility for some of the major episodes of European anti-Jewish mass killing.

As explained by the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust,

“[Hajj Amin al] Husseini made his contribution to the Axis war effort in his capacity as a Muslim, rather than as an Arab leader, by recruiting and organizing in record time [my emphasis], during the spring of 1943, Bosnian Muslim battalions in Croatia comprising some twenty thousand men. These Muslim volunteer units, called Hanjar (sword),[57] were put in Waffen-SS units, fought [the mostly Serbian] Yugoslav partisans in Bosnia, and carried out police and security duties in Hungary. They participated in the massacre of [mostly Serbian, Jewish, and Roma (Gypsy)] civilians in Bosnia and volunteered to join in the hunt for Jews in Croatia... [my emphasis]. The Germans made a point of publicizing the fact that Husseini had flown from Berlin to Sarajevo for the sole purpose of giving his blessing to the Muslim army and inspecting its arms and training exercises.”[58]

Hajj Amin (center, in black coat and white hat) does the Nazi salute
as he inspects his Nazi SS Bosnian Muslim troops.

Hajj Amin's Bosnian Muslim SS troops killed hundreds of thousands of people (mainly Serbs, Jews, and Roma) in their homes or else sent them to die in the vast Croatian concentration camp system known as Jasenovac.[58a]

In addition to the SS Handzar division, Hajj Amin also created in Bosnia the SS Freiwilligen-BH-Gebirgs-Division. The French newspaper Le Monde quotes from a speech Hajj Amin gave to his assembled troops:

“‘You must be the example and beacon in the fight against the common enemies of National-Socialism [Nazism] and Islam.’ November 1943. In the heart of Bosnia, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al Husseini finishes his speech, and then slowly reviews the troops of the SS Freiwilligen-BH-Gebirgs-Division, the volunteers of the mountain division in Bosnia-Herzegovina.”[58b]

After the war, the Yugoslav government issued a warrant for Hajj Amin’s arrest for war crimes. The Western Allies captured him. They should have tried him for war crimes at Nuremberg or turned him over to Yugoslavia. Instead, he mysteriously escaped. Immanuel Velikovsky's furious 1948 article in the New York Post accuses,

“In August 1945, Yugoslavia asked that the ex-Mufti be placed on the official list of war criminals. What is the reason for the failure to bring him to trial in Germany, where he was captured when Germany collapsed?

...according to the Charter of the International Tribunal at Nuremberg, the ex-Mufti is a criminal on all three counts, for crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.”[60]

The reason that Hajj Amin was not brought to trial, is that the British and French governments did not want to. It was the French who held him, and despite repeated insistence in the House of Commons that he be extradited to Great Britain and tried as a war criminal for his crimes against the Jews, the British government refused to do this, and in fact declared our loud that Hajj Amin was not a war criminal (if not him, who?).[60a] The French put him on house arrest. Question: When do you put the man who is arguably history’s greatest war criminal on house arrest? Answer: When you want him to escape. And in fact, surveillance had been relaxed so much that Hajj Amin was allowed to make a trip to Paris, where he got a passport from one of the Arab Legations, and made his escape.[60b] He went to Cairo. Nathan Weinstock explains what happened next.

“The reappearance of the Mufti [Hajj Amin] in Cairo in May 1946 considerably reinforced the Husseinis’ prestige. As he was banned from Palestine, his cousin Jamal Al Husseini asserted himself in the country as the spiritual leader of Palestinian nationalism.

By falling once more under the control of the Husseinis, Palestinian nationalism was led into the most extreme chauvinism. The Arab Higher Committee resorted to systematic terror to crush the last vestiges of Jewish-Arab cooperation in every area of social life. It rejected not merely the proposed partition of the country and all further immigration, but even the proposal that the Palestinian Jews should be given national minority status [in an Arab state].”[62]

So once again Hajj Amin was attacking his fellow Arabs in order to advance his supreme goal: the extermination of the Jews. Notes Weinstock:

“Even the Communist organizations ended up following the orders of the Husseinis’ Arab Higher Committee. Moreover, the latter used terror and political assassination to eliminate their opponents. Palestinian nationalism sank once again into clannish faction fights and vendettas.”[61]

It is unclear why Nathan Weinstock would insist on calling Arab terror against fellow Arabs “Palestinian nationalism,” particularly when the point of this terror was to intimidate any pro-Jewish Arabs so that the anti-Jewish extermination effort could be re-launched. But if we remember that Nathan Weinstock is an anti-Zionist who defends the justice of the ‘Palestinian movement,’ we have an obvious clue.

In 1947 the UN voted to create a Jewish and an Arab state in ‘Palestine.’ In reaction, the Arabs in ‘Palestine,’ led by Hajj Amin al Husseini, and the Arabs living in Arab states, considered that it was much more important to kill the Jews in ‘Palestine’ than to get an Arab state, and they launched a war of extermination. Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League (a British creation), promised: “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre, which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”[64] In addressing the UN Security Council in April 1948, Jamal Husseini, Hajj Amin's cousin and spokesperson for his Arab Higher Committee, straightforwardly and proudly admitted that this was a war of aggression: “The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight.”[65] Hajj Amin himself issued a fatwa (legal Islamic pronouncement) to murder all the Jews that had survived his Nazi Final Solution: “I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!”[63]

One of Hajj Amin's soldiers, in this genocidal war, was Yasser Arafat. According to David N. Bossie, writing in the Washington Times,

“The mufti [Hajj Amin] barely escaped trial for [war crimes] by fleeing to Egypt in 1946. There he made young Yasser Arafat, then living in Cairo, his protégé. The mufti secretly imported a former Nazi commando officer into Egypt to teach Mr. Arafat and other teenage recruits the fine points of guerrilla warfare [NOTE: In fact, these Nazis were sent to Egypt by the CIA]. Mr. Arafat learned his lessons well; the mufti was so proud of him he even pretended the two of them were blood relations.”[70a]

This agrees with Yassar Arafat’s own statements. For example, in 2002, Arafat said the following to an interviewer from the pro-PLO, London-based, Arabic-language newspaper al-Sharq al-Awsat (his comments were picked up by the leading Palestinian daily Al-Quds):

“We are the Mighty People. Were they able to replace our hero Hajj Amin al-Husseini? ...There were a number of attempts to get rid of Hajj Amin, whom they considered an ally of the Nazis. But even so, he lived in Cairo, and participated in the 1948 war, and I was one of his troops.”[70]

This War of 1948 became Israel’s War of Independence, and after the Jews miraculously won it, the Jewish state, the state of Israel, was finally established.

There is a great deal of propaganda concerning supposed war crimes committed by the Israeli Jews during this war. But it was not the Israeli Jews who attacked, and it was not the Israeli Jews who announced their goal to exterminate anybody. Neither was it the Israeli Jews who were led by a man who was the world's most accomplished exterminator of an entire people. So skepticism is in order when examining such accusations against the Israelis. I have examined skeptically what is by far the single most important such accusation -- the allegation that Israeli soldiers committed a massacre of Arab civilians in the town of Deir Yassin (or Dir Yassin). What I found is that this was a fabrication put forward by representatives of Hajj Amin al Husseini’s Arab Higher Committee:

“WAS THERE A MASSACRE AT DEIR YASSIN?; The pro-PLO camp says yes; the historical documentation says otherwise”; Historical and Investigative Research; 20 November 2005; by Francisco Gil-White.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/deir-yassin.htm

By contrast, there is no shortage of evidence that the Arabs took no prisoners: any Jews who fell alive into Arab hands were routinely tortured to death -- so much so, in fact, that Jewish soldiers quickly learned that if they were left wounded on the battlefield, beyond the reach of their comrades, the thing to do was commit suicide by exploding a grenade.[66] In line with the announced genocidal purpose of the war, Jewish civilians were targeted as a matter of Arab policy.

The British were not less opposed than the Arabs to the creation of a Jewish state, and apparently equally keen on exterminating the Israeli Jews. So the British not only assisted the publicly genocidal Arab offensive of 1948 in various ways with the troops they had not yet evacuated from ‘Palestine,’ but in addition sent captured Nazi officers to lead and advise the Arab armies.[67] You read correctly (skeptics should consult the footnote).

Hajj Amin’s Arab Higher Committee continued to be the sole representative of the so-called ‘Palestinian’ Arabs after 1948, until this role was taken over by Al Fatah, an organization created by. . .Hajj Amin’s Arab Higher Committee. Historian Howard Sachar explains:

“...in February 1967 the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization] leader [Ahmed Shukeiry] was wounded in an assassination attempt. For the while, as a result, the organization was at least partially immobilized by factional intrigues.

Not so a rival, and even more radical Palestinian group in Syria, the Fatah (Arab Liberation Movement), organized several years earlier by veterans of the Mufti’s [Hajj Amin's] former Arab Higher Committee.

...From the outset... the Fatah’s reputation depended largely upon the success of its Moslem traditionalist approach of jihad against Israel, and upon conventional infiltration methods.”[68] (my emphases)

Al Fatah, from the start, was run by Mahmoud Abbas (alias Abu Mazen), the current leader of the PLO, and Yasser Arafat.[69] Soon, Al Fatah swallowed the PLO, but kept its name, as explained by historian Howard Sachar:

“By [1970]…the splinterization of the guerilla ranks largely dictated the altered nature of their offensive against Israel. Nominally, most of them belonged to an umbrella coordinating federation, the Palestine Liberation Organization. Yet this prewar, Egyptian-dominated group had been seriously crippled by the June debacle, and its leader, Ahmed Shukeiry, had been forced into retirement. Since then, the PLO had experienced less a revival than a total reincarnation of membership and purpose under the leadership of Yasser Arafat. Consisting ostensibly of representatives of all guerilla organizations, the PLO in its resurrected form was almost entirely Fatah-dominated, and Arafat himself served as president of its executive. In this capacity he was invited to attend meetings of the Arab League, and won extensive subsidies from the oil-rich governments of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf.”[71] (my emphases)

Because the PLO/Fatah became the sole representative of the so-called 'Palestinian' Arabs, Hajj Amin's ideology and leadership once again became synonymous with the 'Palestinian movement.' Hajj Amin himself died in 1974, but his legacy has lived on, which is why the PLO's Constitution proudly calls for the extermination of the Jewish people.[72]

After the German Nazis, the next great patron of Hajj Amin’s movement became...the United States
_____________________________________

The secretive behavior of the US ruling elite makes it difficult to establish precisely when US Intelligence became the boss of Hajj Amin’s movement. But there is some evidence to suggest that the Allies were secretly working with Hajj Amin immediately after the war:

1) The British, as mentioned above, were in favor of the Arab destruction of the fledgling state of Israel in the War of 1948, and backed the Arabs materially, including the sending of captured Nazi officers to ‘advise’ the genocidal Arab armies.[75] It was Hajj Amin’s forces that they were assisting.

2) In the same War of 1948, the US announced that it no longer recognized the state of Israel and slapped an arms embargo on the Israeli Jews, making things easier for Hajj Amin’s forces.[76]

The above establishes that, immediately after the war, the Allies had a policy to further the aims of Hajj Amin’s movement. This makes it relatively plausible that immediately after the war, the Allies were working directly with Hajj Amin, given that they let him escape by placing him on house arrest, and given that they said in public that Hajj Amin -- perhaps history's greatest war criminal -- was, in their view, not a war criminal.

This is like saying that evidence was lacking to accuse Adolf Hitler of war crimes.

In addition, we must consider that US Intelligence absorbed as its employees tens of thousands of Nazi war criminals, immediately after the war,[78] and that just-released US government documents show that the CIA protected the fugitive Adolf Eichmann, Hajj Amin's “permanent colleague [and] partner...in the implementation of th[e Final Solution] programme.”[77]

In light of such facts, it is not exactly outlandish to suggest that US Intelligence began making direct use of Hajj Amin immediately after the war.

What is beyond question is that, at least by 1977, the master-pet relationship between the CIA and Hajj Amin’s movement was firmly in place. In 1977, the US was holding high-level secret talks with Hajj Amin's PLO/Fatah that violated a 1975 agreement with Israel not to do that.[77a] In public, US president Jimmy Carter worked very hard to give PLO/Fatah the dignity of a government in exile. The explicit point of Jimmy Carter’s diplomacy was to give international legitimacy to the demand for a PLO state in the West Bank and Gaza, and it was in fact Jimmy Carter who first proposed such a state, with the PLO obediently following about a week later, though up to this point the PLO had loudly rejected the idea of a PLO state in the West Bank and Gaza.[79]

In 1978, when Israel tried to defend itself from PLO terrorist attacks coming from the PLO bases in southern Lebanon, vigorous US pressure forced the Israelis to back down.[80]

In 1981, against Israeli objections, Ronald Reagan pushed hard for a PLO state in the West Bank and Gaza.[81]

In 1982-1983 the Reagan administration rushed into Lebanon to protect the PLO from being destroyed by the Israelis, after the Israelis invaded Lebanon once again to protect themselves from PLO attacks against Israeli civilians in the Galilee. The US exerted very strong pressure on the Israelis to back down, and then provided a military safe passage for the PLO so that they could make their new home in Tunis.[82]

In 1985, certain Israeli politicians, following US wishes, tried hard to advance the political interests of the PLO. In the same year, some Italian politicians who, it has now been established, were part of a covert (pro-fascist) CIA effort in Europe, sacrificed their political careers for the sake of advancing the political image of the PLO against Israel. Meanwhile, Ronald Reagan denied the Holocaust. This was not Reagan’s senility: the entire administration was behind the effort.[83]

In 1987-88, the PLO launched the First Intifada in the West Bank and Gaza (though the media pretended it was a “spontaneous uprising”). The US cooperated closely with the effort to blame the First Intifada on supposed Israeli brutality, and to use the accusation as a reason to advance the project to create a PLO state in the West Bank and Gaza.[84]

In 1989, with Dick Cheney leading the charge, the US began supporting a PLO state in the West Bank as supposedly the “only solution” to the Arab-Israeli conflict.[85]

In 1991, a critical year, George Bush Sr.’s administration literally forced the Israelis -- with threats -- to participate in what became the Oslo so-called ‘peace’ process, the purpose of which was to bring the PLO out from Tunis and into the Jewish state, where it would become the government over the Arab population living in the West Bank and Gaza, from which position the PLO has been indoctrinating these Arabs into Hajj Amin’s genocidal ideology, and murdering any Arabs who disagree, as Hajj Amin also used to do.[86]

In 1994, the same year that Yasser Arafat was given a Nobel Peace Prize (!!), and which saw the debut of the Oslo ‘peace’ process by bringing the PLO into Israel, Bill Clinton's CIA was training the PLO. This, despite the fact that Arafat’s henchmen were explaining to the Western press, in English, in the same year of 1994, that they would use their CIA training to kill Jews and any Arabs who didn't like that, in accordance with Hajj Amin's ideology.[87]

When Yasser Arafat died, the US enthusiastically endorsed his replacement Mahmoud Abbas (alias Abu Mazen), who, like Yasser Arafat, has always shared Hajj Amin’s ideology and therefore wishes to exterminate the Jewish people.[88]

Very soon, the Israeli government, under US pressure, will finish cleansing the Jews out of the West Bank (it has already cleansed them out of Gaza), giving this territory to the antisemitic terrorists who are pledged to destroy the Jewish people. From this position, and backed by Iran, by the Arab states, and by the US (and Europe), it should not be too difficult to mount the next genocide of the Jewish people, assuming that Israeli Jews and the Jews of the Diaspora continue to offer only a weak resistance to the treasonous policies of their own leaders.

Hajj Amin has almost won.

__________________________________________________________

Footnotes and Further Reading
__________________________________________________________

[0] Pearlman, M. 1947. Mufti of Jerusalem: The story of Haj Amin el Husseini. London: V Gollancz. (p.51)

[1] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p203)

[2] The Oslo syndrome. (p.203)

[3] To see what Patterson meant with his reference to Czarist Russia, consider the following summary by historian Amos Elon of the pogrom in Kishiniev [Kih-shee-nuh-yev], in 1903:

“On April 19 an outrage occurred in the small Bessarabian town of Kishinev, which, in less than 48 hours, left 45 local Jews lying dead, and nearly 600 wounded; 1,500 shops and homes were pillaged or destroyed. The church bells were ringing on Easter Sunday, when a wild mob, undoubtedly acting on a given signal, rushed through the narrow streets killing Jews and setting fire to their homes and stores. In the past few decades Kishiniev's Christian population of some 60,000 had lived peacefully alongside 50,000 Jewish artisans and small shopkeepers. The only newspaper in the town was a sensational anti-Semitic journal, the Bessarabitz, subsidized by the czarist Ministry of the Interior from a special slush fund. In recent months the Bessarabitz had waged a vicious campaign against the Jews of Kishinev, accusing them of ritual murder of Christian babies and of sponsoring, at the same time, both socialist revolution and the capitalist exploitation of Christians.

The police made no attempt to interfere in the widespread killing, looting, and arson. For almost twenty-four hours, while the army was ordered by the provincial governor to remain in its barracks, the mob ran amok. Nails were driven into victim's skulls, eyes gouged out, and babies thrown from higher stories of buildings to the pavement. Men were castrated, women were raped. The local bishop drove in his carriage through the crowd, blessing it as he passed. Only on the evening of the second day did the police appear on the scene to disperse the mob. By then the devastation had been accomplished. It was generally believed that Konstantin Pobedenostsev, the Czar's close adviser and head of the Holy Synod, had inspired the outrage in order to divert popular sentiments from the social revolutionists.

Pobedenostsev's own solution of the Jewish problem was known to be three-pronged: a third would convert, a third would emigrate, and a third would die. It was widely reported that Wenzel von Plehve, the czarist Minister of the Interior, had instructed the provincial governor of Kishinev not to be overzealous in his protection of the Jews. At Kishinev the government was testing a new technique to drown the revolutionary fervor in Jewish blood. News of the pogrom was suppressed in the Russian newspapers, which merely stated that there had been a sudden outbreak provoked by the Jews.”

SOURCE: Elon, A. 1975. Herzl. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston. (pp.373-374)

[4] The Oslo syndrome. (p.203)

[5] Shapira, A. 1992. Land and power: The Zionist resort to force 1881-1948. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. (pp.110-111).

[6] "In his memoirs, [World Zionist Organization leader Chaim] Weizmann stated that several days before the tragic event he had spoken with Allenby and Bols in Jerusalem, warning them that there was strong potential for violence at the forthcoming [al Nebi Musa] holiday..."

SOURCE: McTague, J. J. 1978. The British Military Administration in Palestine 1917-1920. Journal of Palestine Studies 7:55-76. (p.68).

[6] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (pp.203-204)

[8] ““In June 1922 the League of Nations [the highest international authority, precursor to the United Nations] passed the Palestine Mandate. The Palestine Mandate was an explicit document regarding Britain’s responsibilities and powers of administration in Palestine including ‘secur[ing] the establishment of the Jewish national home,’ and ‘safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine.’”

SOURCE: British Mandate of Palestine | From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine

[9] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (pp.203-204)

[10] The Oslo Syndrome (p.202-03)

[11] Weinstock, N. 1979. Zionism: False Messiah. London: Ink Links Ltd. (p.116)

[12] Zionism: False Messiah. (p.115)

[13] Milstein , U. 1996. History of the War of Independence: A Nation Girds for War. Vol. 1, New York: University Press of America. (pp.155-156)

[14] Shapira, A. 1992. Land and power: The Zionist resort to force 1881-1948. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press (p.110).

[15] Land and power (p.111).

[16] “...al-Husseini had used his influence to quiet additional disturbances in 1921. He assured Samuel that he would continue to maintain order, and it was with this understanding that the high commissioner granted him the position of mufti.”

SOURCE: Hajj Amin al Husseini | Jewish Virtual Libraryhttp://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/mufti.html

[17] To see a more thorough documentation of the remarkably stable phenomenon of attacks against the Jewish people by Jewish leaders, consult the following series:

“THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH SELF-DEFENSE: An HIR series”; Historical and Investigative Research; 17 January 2006; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/leaders0.htm

[18] Shapira, A. 1992. Land and power: The Zionist resort to force 1881-1948. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press (p.114).

[19] Shapira, A. 1992. Land and power: The Zionist resort to force 1881-1948. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press (p.114).

[20] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.205)

[21] In his history of the eugenics movement, Edwin Black (2003:215) points out that “Winston Churchill [was] an enthusiastic supporter of eugenics.” That's the same eugenics movement out of which came the German Nazi party, and readers are encouraged to visit the following link in order to put Winston Churchill’s career (summarized in this footnote) in its broadest historical context.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm#1930

Winston Churchill was also a class warrior who was irrevocably against giving women, and men without property, the right to vote (‘universal suffrage’): “‘We already have enough ignorant voters,’ he remarked, ‘and don’t want any more’” (Addison 2005:50). And he thought a good way to solve labor problems was to shoot striking workers dead. Here’s an example, as explained by Churchill’s biographer Paul Addison, from the period when Winston Churchill was Home Secretary:

“During the summer of 1911, when strikes in the docks spread to the railways, [Winston Churchill] was seized by a nightmare vision... Overriding the local authorities, he dispatched troops to many parts of the country and gave army commanders discretion to employ them. When rioters tried to prevent the movement of a train at Llanelli, troops opened fire and shot two men dead. Churchill’s blood was up and when [Prime Minister] Lloyd George intervened to settle the strike Churchill telephoned him to say that it would have been better to go on and give the strikers ‘a good thrashing.’” (Addison 2005:54)

Winston Churchill is also on record stating that ‘whites’ can exterminate ‘non-whites’ with impunity:

"I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, or at any rate, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." (quoted in Addison 2005:137).

With the above for context, one is not exactly surprised to find that Churchill, “In February 1933,” which is the same year that Adolf Hitler became German chancellor, “…praised [Italian fascist leader Benito] Mussolini…as ‘the greatest lawgiver among living men’” (Addison 2005:140). Nor is one surprised to find Churchill’s biographer Paul Addison admitting that “With fascism as such…he had no quarrel” (ibid.). But Addison is understating matters here, and a quick glance at some of Churchill’s behaviors is enough to make one wonder whether World War II will not perhaps deserve a different interpretation from the one traditionally given.

As Addison explains, in 1927 Churchill led a cabinet revolt and thereby derailed an agreement that the United States had been seeking with Britain to allow expansion of the American navy (ibid. pp.126-127). Churchill sprang this stunt, mind you, when the British representatives at the conference had already agreed to sign. This was an obstacle to the further spectacular enrichment of American steel magnate Charles M. Schwab, because it was Schwab who would be providing the steel for an expanded American navy. But he could not exactly be sore with Churchill, who in his earlier capacity as WWI British Minister of Munitions had enriched Schwab spectacularly by placing orders with him (ibid. p.128).

Two years later Schwab would have an opportunity to demonstrate that, indeed, he was not sore at Churchill. You see, in 1929 Winston Churchill ended up ‘on the street,’ so to speak: “The Conservative government was defeated in 1929, and Churchill, now out of office, was in need of income. …[He] was now increasingly dependent on his writing and public speaking to sustain his lifestyle,” as explained in a a Library of Congress exhibit on Churchill that may be inspected here:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/churchill/wc-affairs.html

For Churchill this was a vexing problem indeed because “his lifestyle” can only be described as royally extravagant, but as chance would have it Charles M. Schwab just now invited the unemployed British politician to promenade himself all around the American continent in Schwab’s private railcar—at no expense (Addison 2005:128).

Like Churchill, Charles M. Schwab was a class warrior who thought the right way to deal with a strike was to crush it by calling in the state police and threatening sympathetic businesses.

"In 1910, he crushed a 108-day strike at Bethlehem Steel. ‘I will not be in the position of having management dictated to by labor,’ he said. It was not until 1941, two years after Schwab died, that organized labor arrived at Bethlehem Steel."
http://www.bethlehempaonline.com/schwab_bio.html

The way Schwab crushed that strike was by calling in the state police and threatening any businesses that sided with the striking workers, as recorded in this Bethlehem Steel timeline called “Forging America: the Story of Bethlehem Steel,” by McCall.com:
http://www.mcall.com/news/specials/bethsteel/
all-bstimeline-1910,0,1493803.htmlstory

Schwab got his start in the steel business ingratiating himself to Andrew Carnegie, another class warrior who believed the way to solve labor disputes was to shoot the strikers dead, and who was the main financier of the American eugenics movement. (The fact that these unimaginably wealthy men found it so easy to get the police organs of the state to act repressively against their own workers is not surprising given that the American government was enthusiastically pushing the anti-worker eugenics movement, as documented extensively in Edwin Black's War Against the Weak).

At Schwab's invitation, then, Churchill now took the mother of all vacations on Schwab’s luxury-hotel-cum-railcar and traveled to city after American city, giving lucrative talks. Matters were arranged so that Winston Churchill would travel down to California to meet with William Randolph Hearst, the man who essentially owned all of Hollywood and half of the United States print media (Addison 2005:128). Hearst wined and dined Churchill at his St. Simeon castle, and assembled for him an audience “dotted with Hollywood figures and pretty much representing the whole film industry,” to whom the British politician declaimed: “You are an educational institution which spreads its influence all over the world…” (Leary 2001). After this Hearst put Churchill on a stipend: “a lucrative contract for Churchill to contribute regular articles to the Hearst Press” (Addison 2005:128-129).

Now Churchill could afford his lifestyle.

The conclusion to Winston Churchill’s remarkable tour of the United States was a speech he gave to the Iron and Steel Institute, where Charles M. Schwab was the CEO. Here there was a miraculous metamorphosis, and Churchill, the erstwhile bitter enemy of American naval expansion now became its most passionate advocate, because, what could be better for everybody? (Addison 2005:126-127, 129). It doesn’t look good, especially when you consider that prior to making for himself a hero’s reputation during World War II, Churchill had been widely considered a shameless and unprincipled opportunist who would do anything to get himself ahead (Addison 2005:44).

But there’s more.

Winston Churchill’s employer, William Randolph Hearst, the same one who in 1936 was being called “the most influential American fascist…the keystone of American fascism” (Lundberg 1936:343), was an intimate friend of the German millionaire Putzi Hanfstaengl, who was nothing less than Adolf Hitler’s financial backer and press secretary (Pizzitola 2002:27-28). Consistent with all that, Hearst attended the famous Nuremberg rallies with the hysterically adoring crowds that Leni Riefenstahl immortalized in her famous Nazi propaganda films, staying in the same hotel with all the top Nazis. Goebbels’ Nazi propaganda ministry went out of its way to report the gushing reactions of Hearst’s son George (ibid. pp.308-310). There were accusations at the time -- deserved ones, it appears -- that Hearst had made an agreement with Hitler to give him good press in the United States (ibid.).

Not long after two powerful American class warriors, Hearst and Schwab, had turned Winston Churchill, another class warrior, into the obedient advocate of American naval expansion, the future wartime British prime minister, on the eve of Hitler’s coming to power, had a quite friendly meeting with Putzi Hangstaengl. I remind you that Hanfstaengl was Hearst’s good friend and also Hitler’s spokesman and financier (Addison 2005:140). This was soon followed by Churchill’s declaration, as Adolf Hitler was taking power in Germany, that Italian fascist Benito Mussolini was God’s gift to the world (see above). What are we to make of this, in combination with the fact that Churchill’s own eugenic ideology included a rather strongly articulated belief that a good way to rid the world of useless ‘riffraff’ was to get countries to make war on each other?

“...[the] social Darwinian views of war[,] which he had acquired as a subaltern in the 1890s..., were indeed to endure into the Second World War, according to a memorandum in the FBI’s file on Churchill. In an off-the-record discussion with American newspapermen in 1943 [that is to say, during WWII, while the Jews of Europe were being exterminated], a source who had been 'intimately associated' with Churchill reported that someone had asked him how it was that God could make such a beautiful sunrise and then permit so much misery in the world.

Churchill made a lengthy statement that there was no peace on earth save in death; that all life is war, a struggle for survival; that the best in men comes out in time of war; that in times of war the real improvements are achieved, and that under the stress of war tremendous progress is made for the good of living. Churchill stated that when war ends, men settle down to taking things easy, to complacency, and only war will compel more progress.” (Addison 2005:89)

SOURCES:

Addison, P. 2005. Churchill: The unexpected hero. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Black, E. 2003. War against the weak: Eugenics and America's campaign to create a master race. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows.

Leary, D. T. 2001. "Winston S. Churchill in California." California History 70:167(17).

Lundberg, F. 1936. Imperial Hearst: A social biography. New York: Equinox Cooperative Press.

Pizzitola, L. 2002. Hearst over Hollywood. New York: Columbia University Press.

[22] Addison, P. 2005. Churchill: The unexpected hero. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (p.140)

[23] Pearlman, M. 1947. Mufti of Jerusalem: The story of Haj Amin el Husseini. London: V Gollancz. (pp.13-14)

[24] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.205)

[25] Library Of Congress Country Study - Israel;http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/iltoc.html 

(Click on the heading “The Arab Community During The Mandate”)

[26] Land and power (p.114).

[27] See the subheading, “How similar to “mainstream American Jewish leaders” were mainstream Jewish leaders elsewhere?” in,

“How the mainstream Jewish leadership failed the Jewish people in World War II”; Historical and Investigative Research; 17 January 2006; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/leaders1.htm

[28] Shapira, A. 1992. Land and power: The Zionist resort to force 1881-1948. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press (p.111).

[29] Weinstock, N. 1979. Zionism: False Messiah. London: Ink Links Ltd. (p.113)

[31] Shapira, A. 1992. Land and power: The Zionist resort to force 1881-1948. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press (p.170).

[32] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (pp.205-206)

[33] The Oslo syndrome (pp.206-207)

[34] Shapira, A. 1992. Land and power. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, (p.174)

[35] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (pp.205-207)

[36] Shapira, A. 1992. Land and power. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, (p.182)

[37] Land and power. (pp.182-183)

[38] See,

“How mainstream Diaspora Jewish leaders are failing the Jewish people today”; Historical and Investigative Research - 22 March 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/leaders2.htm

[39] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.217)

[40] “Following false rumors about Arabs who had allegedly been assaulted in Tel Aviv, Arabs in Jaffa rushed to attack Jewish passersby. On ‘Bloody Sunday,’ April 19, nine Jews were murdered there, and another ten were injured. The unrest soon spread to other mixed towns. At the same time, preparations were made to organize an Arab general strike. After a few days of trouble in which the initiative was in the hands of young Arab radicals, who enjoyed immediate, spontaneous support among broad segments of the Arab population, the Arab leadership responded to the popular rising tide and established the Arab Higher Committee.”

SOURCE: Shapira, A. 1992. Land and power. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, (pp.219-220)

[41] Sachar, H. 1982. A history of Israel: From the rise of Zionism to our time. New York: Knopf. (p.200-201)

[42] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.217)

[43] The Oslo syndrome (p.218)

[44] Sachar, H. 1982. A history of Israel: From the rise of Zionism to our time. New York: Knopf. (p.201-202)

[45] Sachar, H. 1982. A history of Israel: From the rise of Zionism to our time. New York: Knopf. (excerpt beings on p.195)

[46] “The British yet again appointed a commission to investigate the unrest and formulate recommendations, and the Peel Commission in 1937 -- informally early in the year and officially and publicly in July -- proposed partition of the Mandate into independent Jewish and Arab states. The Jewish state would consist of about 4 percent of the original Palestine Mandate. The League of Nations objected to the proposal, insisting that it violated Britain’s obligations to the Jews under the Mandate. [Zionist leader] Ben-Gurion, however, agreed to the recommendation, focused as he was on the looming catastrophe in Europe and his recognition that even this mini-state would offer the Jews a refuge. He argued: ‘Through which [option] can we get in the shortest possible time the most Jews in Palestine?’ ...How much greater will be the absorptive capacity without an alien, unconcerned...hostile [British] administration, but with a Zionist government...holding the key to immigration in its hand?’”

SOURCE: Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.218)

“...the report’s proposal was for Palestine and Transjordan to be divided into three regions: a Jewish state comprising, essentially, the coastal plain and Galilee; a much larger Arab state embracing the rest of Palestine and Transjordan; and a permanently mandated British enclave including the Jerusalem-Bethlehem promontory...

...there was no ambiguity whatever in the views of the Mufti and his followers. They rejected the plan with contempt and ensured that he entire Arab Higher Committee formally turned it down. In their stand, they now mobilized the support of Arab and Moslem leaders far beyond the boundaries of Palestine itself.”

SOURCE: Sachar, H. 1982. A history of Israel: From the rise of Zionism to our time. New York: Knopf. (excerpt beings on p.195)

[47] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.219)

[48] The Oslo syndrome (p.219)

[49] Land and power (p.289)

[50] Land and power (p.289-290)

[51] “Ex-Mufti, Criminal Ally” by ‘Observer’ (Immanuel Velikovsky), New York Post, Monday, February 23, 1948.http://www.varchive.org/obs/480223.htm

[52] To learn about the Farhud, and Hajj Amin’s role in it, visit:http://judeoscope.ca/article.php3?id_article=0390

[53] “Ex-Mufti, Criminal Ally” by ‘Observer’ (Immanuel Velikovsky), New York Post, Monday, February 23, 1948.http://www.varchive.org/obs/480223.htm

[54] Author: Germany. Auswärtiges Amt [Foreign Ministry]. Title: Documents on German foreign policy, 1918-1945, from the archives of the German Foreign Ministry.Akten zur deutschen auswärtigen Politik. English Publisher: Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1949- Description: Book v. fold. maps. 24 cm.; Series D, Vol. XIII no. 515. NOTE: You may read the entire document at:http://www.hirhome.com/israel/muftihitler.htm

[55] Dieter Wisliceny | From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieter_Wisliceny

[56] Transcription of the Adolf Eichmann trial in Jerusalem; Session 50; 9 Sivan 5721 (24 May 1961); p.915; Published online by The Nizkor Project.http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eichmann-adolf/
transcripts/Sessions/Session-050-07.html

[56a] Jersak, T. 2000. Blitzkrieg revisited: A new look at nazi war and extermination planning. The historical journal 43:565-582. (p.571).

[56b] Marrus, M. R., and R. O. Paxton. 1982. The Nazis and the Jews in occupied Western Europe, 1940-1944. Journal of modern history 54:687-714. (p.687)

[56c] Lasok, D. 1962. The Eichmann trial. The international and comparative law quarterly 11:355-374. (p.358).

[57] To see documentation on the terrorist Handzar Division created by Hajj Amin in WWII Bosnia, including photographs of the Bosnian Muslim Nazi soldiers being inspected by Hajj Amin, visit:

“HIMMLER WAS THEIR DEFENDER!; The SS Handzar Division Lives on in Bosnia; Emperor’s Clothes; 9 January 2003; by Dan Chukurov, Petar Makara and Jared Israel.http://emperors-clothes.com/bosnia/svijet.htm

To read about how the Handzar division was resuscitated in the 1990s by Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic, visit:

Painting fascists as victims, and their victims as fascists: The mainstream media turned Bosnia upside down; from “WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN BOSNIA?”; Historical and Investigative Research, 19 Aug 2005; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/yugo/ihralija2.htm

[58] Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Edition 1990, Volume 2, Pages 706 and 707, entry Husseini, Hajj Amin Al-

[58a] Jasenovac concentration camp | From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasenovac_concentration_camp

[58b] "VOUS devez servir d'exemple et de fanal dans la lutte contre les ennemis communs du national-socialisme et de l'islam. " Novembre 1943. Au coeur de la Bosnie, le grand mufti de Jerusalem, Hajj Amin Al Husseini termine son allocution, puis passe lentement en revue les hommes de la SS Freiwilligen-BH-Gebirgs-Division, les volontaires de la division de montagne de Bosnie-Herzegovine."

SOURCE: Le Monde, November 15, 1993, Idees, 1880 words, DATE Il y a cinquante ans Une division SS islamiste en Bosnie, YVES-MARC AJCHENBAUM, FRENCH; FRANCAISE [translation, Francisco Gil-White]

[59] “Mufti of Jerusalem Hajj Amin's Role as an Instigator of the Shoah (Holocaust)”; Emperor’s Clothes; 2 December 2003; by Jared Israel.http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/bakera.htm

[60] “Ex-Mufti, Criminal Ally” by ‘Observer’ (Immanuel Velikovsky), New York Post, Monday, February 23, 1948.http://www.varchive.org/obs/480223.htm

[60a] Pearlman, M. 1947. Mufti of Jerusalem: The story of Haj Amin el Husseini. London: V Gollancz. (78-82)

[60b] “On 8th June, 1946, Mr. Duff Cooper held a Victory Day Garden Party at the British Embassy in Paris. M. Bidault, French Foreign Minister at the time, was one of the guests. He arrived late, bringing with him the interesting news that Hajj Amin al Husseini, former Mufti of Jerusalem, had fled from his villa in the fashionable Paris subub of Rambouillet, where he had been under surveillance since the end of the war.

...He had been in France since May, 1945, having been captured by French forces near the Swiss border after his unsuccessful attempt to find refuge in Switzerland with Germany's collapse. He had been brought to Rambouillet and kept under surveillance.

M. Bidault revealed that, some months before his flightm, the French Government had received the Mufti's assurance that he would not seek to escape. Since November, 1945, surveillance had been relaxed, and Hajj Amin had been permitted to visit Paris. He had taken the opportunity of visiting the Legations of the Arab States at will, and had secured a passport from one of these Legations.

Now he had fled.”

SOURCE: Pearlman, M. 1947. Mufti of Jerusalem: The story of Haj Amin el Husseini. London: V Gollancz. (p.7)

[61] Weinstock, N. 1979. Zionism: False Messiah. London: Ink Links Ltd. (pp.260-261)

[62] Weinstock, N. 1979. Zionism: False Messiah. London: Ink Links Ltd. (p.261)

[63] Leonard J. Davis and M. Decter (eds.). Myths and Facts 1982; a Concise Record of the Arab-Israeli Conflict (Washington DC: near east report, 1982), p. 199

[64] Sachar, H. 1982. A history of Israel: From the rise of Zionism to our time. New York: Knopf. (p.333)

[65] Security Council Official Records, S/Agenda/58, (April 16, 1948), p. 19

[66] Historian Uri Milstein, who has produced the definitive history of the 1948 war, recounts many battles with great detail in his work “The Rabin File.” It becomes clear from these descriptions just how routine the suicide of wounded Jewish soldiers on the battlefield was, who feared the atrocities they knew only too well would follow at the hands of the enemy Arabs. See:
Milstein U. 1999. The Rabin file: An unauthorized exposé. New York: Gefen

[67] “THE BRITISH RECORD ON PARTITION”; Reprinted from The Nation, May 8, 1948; Comments by Jared Israel, Emperor's Clothes.

Original in pdf: http://emperor.vwh.net/history/br-role.pdf
Easy to read text version: http://emperors-clothes.com/history/br.htm

To place this behavior of the British in a broader context, visit:

In 1947-48, forced by external circumstances, the US government gave lukewarm support to the creation of the State of Israel. But then it reversed itself and implemented policies designed to destroy Israel; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL: A chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm#1947

[68] Sachar, H. 1982. A history of Israel: From the rise of Zionism to our time. New York: Knopf. (pp.619, 698)

[69] “Abu Mazen is...one of the founders of Fatah, one of the original Arafat band of brothers.”

SOURCE: THUS FAR AND NO FATAH FOR MR PALESTINE; Resistance is growing within the PLO over Yasser Arafat and the Israeli peace process, The Guardian (London), November 12, 1993, THE GUARDIAN FEATURES PAGE; Pg. 24, 1204 words, DAVID HIRST

[70] Al-Quds (Palestinian daily newspaper) Aug, 2, 2002
(This is according to a translation made by Palestinian Media Watch:http://www.pmw.org.il/bulletins-050802.html )

[70a] Washington Times; August 9, 2002; "Yasser Arafat: Nazi trained", by David N. Bossie.

[71] Sachar, H. 1982. A history of Israel: From the rise of Zionism to our time. New York: Knopf. (p.698)

[72] The 1968 PLO Charter states the objectives of the PLO as follows. Article 9 says that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.” That’s worth chewing on for a second, because the PLO could have written the same thing like this: “it is required that Palestine be liberated in the act of killing people.” Killing which people? This is relatively obvious. Article 15 of the PLO Charter states that it is “a national duty to repulse the Zionist imperialist invasion from the great Arab homeland and to purge the Zionist presence from Palestine,” and article 22 declares that “the liberation of Palestine will liquidate the Zionist and imperialist presence.” In other words, the PLO, which organization asserts that ‘Palestine’ may be ‘liberated’ only in the act of killing people, explains that its goal is purging and liquidating -- that is to say, exterminating -- “Zionists.” Doesn’t this agree perfectly with how the PLO, behaviorally, chooses to define ‘Palestine’ as ‘the territory that Jews live on’?

SOURCE: The PLO Charter articles were translated by: The Associated Press, December 15, 1998, Tuesday, AM cycle, International News, 1070 words, Clinton meets with Netanyahu, Arafat, appeals for progress, By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent, EREZ CROSSING, Gaza Strip.

[74] Amin al-Husayni | From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni

[75] “THE BRITISH RECORD ON PARTITION”; Reprinted from The Nation, May 8, 1948; Comments by Jared Israel, Emperor's Clothes.

Original in pdf: http://emperor.vwh.net/history/br-role.pdf
Easy to read text version: http://emperors-clothes.com/history/br.htm

To place this behavior of the British in a broader context, visit:

In 1947-48, Forced by external circumstances, the US government gave lukewarm support to the creation of the State of Israel. But then it reversed itself and implemented policies designed to destroy Israel; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL: A chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm#1947

[76] In 1947-48, forced by external circumstances, the US government gave lukewarm support to the creation of the State of Israel. But then it reversed itself and implemented policies designed to destroy Israel; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?: A chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-Whitehttp://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm#1947

[77] “THE CIA PROTECTED ADOLF EICHMANN, ARCHITECT OF THE HOLOCAUST: Has the US ruling elite been pushing a pro-Nazi policy?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 8 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-Whitehttp://www.hirhome.com/israel/eichmann.htm

[77a] In 1981, the New York Times commented that the United States had a 1975 agreement with Israel not to establish any contact with the PLO. It is interesting that the Israelis felt such an agreement was needed. But it was not honored. Writes the New York Times:

"In fact, however, the Central Intelligence Agency has for several years maintained and occasionally used a little publicized, so-called 'back-channel' line of communications with P.L.O. headquarters in Beirut."

SOURCE: Source: The New York Times, May 17, 1981, Sunday, Late City Final Edition, Section 6; Page 77, Column 3; Magazine Desk, 11464 words, "Putting The Hostages' Lives First"

The word 'several' corresponds very well to the number of years that had gone by since the agreement: six. It appears, therefore, that the US violated its agreement with Israel immediately after signing it. What appears beyond doubt is that the CIA had violated the agreement by 1977, because in that year it was reported that the Carter administration and the PLO were "involved in secret high-level contacts":

"Beirut newspaper Al Anwar repts Carter Adm and Palestinian guerrilla leaders are involved in secret high-level contacts. Cites June 24 meeting between William W Scranton, reptdly representing Carter, and PLO repr Basil Akl, London. Says exch began in May with note from PLO head Yasir Arafat delivered to Carter by Saudi Prince Fahd. Note reptdly outlined Arafat's views on PLO role in Arab-Israeli Geneva peace talks and on Palestinian state and peace treaties with Israel (S)."

SOURCE: New York Times; July 20, 1977, Wednesday; Section: Page 8, Column 3; Length: 81 Words; Journal-Code: Nyt; Abstract:

[78] After 1945, the US created US Intelligence by recruiting tens of thousands of Nazi war criminals; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?: A chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm#1945

[79] In 1977 Jimmy Carter worked hard to give the terrorist PLO the dignity of a 'government in exile'; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?: A chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm#1977

[80] When Israel tried to defend itself from the PLO terrorists in 1978, the US forced Israel to stand back; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?: A chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm#1978

[81] In 1981 the US pushed for a PLO state in the West Bank, against Israeli objections; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?: A chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1981

[82] In 1982-1983 the US military rushed into Lebanon to protect the PLO from the Israelis; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?: A chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1982

[83] The following is the hyperlinked table of contents for the 1985 entry in: “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?: A chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.

1985 includes more material than other years, so we have divided it into subsections.

1. Shimon Peres acted as a US agent, against Israeli interests.

2. Bettino Craxi and Giulio Andreotti (respectively, the Italian prime minister and foreign minister) committed political suicide for the sake of pushing the PLO. The US was behind them.

3. Ronald Reagan denied the Holocaust

4. Who was in charge of US covert operations in 1985?

[84] The ‘First Intifada’ of 1987-88 was a US-PLO strategy used to represent the Arabs in West Bank and Gaza as supposedly oppressed ‘underdogs’; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?: A chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1987

[85] In 1989, with Dick Cheney, the US began supporting a PLO state in the open as the 'only solution' to the Arab-Israeli conflict; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?: A chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1989

[86] In 1991, Bush Sr.'s administration forced Israel to participate in the Oslo process, which brought the PLO into the West Bank and Gaza; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?: A chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1991

[87] In 1994 Yasser Arafat was given a Nobel Peace Prize, and the CIA trained the PLO, even though Arafat's henchmen were saying in public, this very year, that they would use their training to oppress Arabs and kill Jews; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?: A chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1994

[88] Mahmoud Abbas, who in 2005 will be given total control over Gaza, is the one who invented the strategy of talking ‘peace’ the better to slaughter Israelis. The US ruling elite loves Mahmoud Abbas; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?: A chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#2005

---

www.hirhome.com

“...the Arab historian Philip Hitti testified in 1946 before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry that ‘There is no such thing as ‘Palestine’ in history, absolutely not.’
”Kenneth Levin ( 2005:288 )

█ Part 1 - Palestinian Arab racism against Jews in the first half of the 20th c. █ Part 2 - Who are the Palestinian Arabs? █ Part 3 - Did the Zionist Jews take something away from the Arabs in British Mandate 'Palestine'? █ Part 4 - How did the 'Palestinian movement' emerge?

---

Note to the reader:
Nathan Weinstock, whom we encounter repeatedly in this series, claims to have made an 'about face' and to have seen the error of his earlier ways. HIR has published an article that demonstrates how Nathan Weinstock has merely found a new, more clever way to attack the Jewish people.

Arab Leaders Confess, “Palestinian” People Do Not Exist
chersonandmolschky.com/.../arab-leaders-confess-palestinian-people-exi...



• Cached
• Similar
Jun 11, 2013 - “There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not.” – Professor Philip Hitti, Arab historian. “It is common knowledge that Palestine is ...
Philip Khuri Hitti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Khuri_Hitti



• Cached
• Similar
Wikipedia
Loading...
Philip Khuri Hitti (فيليب خوري حتي in Arabic),(1886 - 1978), a Maronite ... Hitti.. explained that there was actually no such entity as Palestine- never had been; ...
HIR | Understanding the 'Palestinian' movement
www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov2.htm



• Cached
• Similar
Apr 30, 2006 - If, however, as Arab historian Philip Hitti testified in 1946 before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, “There is no such thing as 'Palestine' ...
Jewish Claim To The Land Of Israel | Jewish Virtual Library
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/.../The_Jewish...



• Cached
• Similar
Jewish Virtual Library
Loading...
Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not.
When the Arabs Themselves Denied There Was a Palestine ...
www.nysun.com/opinion/when-the-arabs-themselves...there.../87607/



• Similar
Dec 13, 2011 - 'Palestine' is alien to us.” Shortly before the birth of Israel, prominent Arab historian Philip Hitti conceded: “There is no such thing as Palestine, ...
Saudi Aramco World : A Talk With Philip Hitti
https://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/.../a.talk.with.p...



• Cached
Saudi Aramco World
Loading...
"There is no comparable book on the subject," an Arab historian in Beirut said recently. "On the Arabs .... "If you send Philip Hitti," Mott said, "we'll pay his traveling expenses." Dr. Bliss ..... They set up the Latin Kingdom of Palestine in 1099.
"There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not ...
www.usmessageboard.com › Global Discussion › Israel and Palestine



• Cached
Jul 4, 2014 - Guess who said this: "There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not". - Professor Philip Hitti, Arab historian, 1946 - Hitti was...
The Counterfeit Arabs - Op-Eds - Arutz Sheva
www.israelnationalnews.com › Op-Eds



• Cached
• Similar
Arutz Sheva
Loading...
Nov 20, 2013 - “There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not”. (Professor Philip Hitti, Arab historian, 1946). “It is common knowledge that ...
Israel My Beloved – Was there ever a state of Palestine?
israelmybeloved.com/was-there-ever-a-state-of-palestine/



• Cached
• Similar
Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: “There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not.
Judgment Day: Islam, Israel and the Nations
www.hope-of-israel.org/islam&israel.html



• Cached
And the world blames Israel for not making peace with such enemies! ... From that time forward, all those living there were known as "Palestinians." ... Professor Philip Hitti, Arab historian, testified to an Anglo-American Committee of inquiry in ...

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Next

---

www.hirhome.com