Customer Reviews

From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine

5 star:		(63)
4 star:		(11)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(16)

 

 

This book has engendered an enormous amount of criticism since its publication in 1984. My review of the reviews reveals that some of the criticism is warranted. The book does contain a certain amount of sloppy scholarship. In particular, Peters' apparent misapplication of certain statistics regarding population growth in Palestine in the early 20th century is questionable. Enemies of Israel and historical revisionists have used these errors to condemn and discredit the book. In my experience, virtually all scholarly work contains errors of the kind Peters' is accused of. I have not checked her footnotes nor do I expect have most of her readers. The reader has a right to rely on the accuracy of footnotes.

As I see it, Peters has been accused by the revisionists and enemies of Israel of misusing quotes, taking them out of context and over-relying on anecdotal evidence. I find this ironic since this is exactly what the revisionists have been revealed to have done. I suppose they should be familiar with their own technique. This does not excuse the action. I reject the "revisionist technique" which smacks of Marxist "correctness". The goal of the historian should be the revelation of the truth. The mis-application of evidence is one of the worst sins an historian can commit. I do not excuse Peters.

And yet...And yet...the real question is whether the errors in her scholarship discredits her thesis. If one eliminates the problematic sources and quotes, does the argument fall apart? To this I offer a resounding no.

Peters an American non-Jew, with no ax to grind for either side set out to research the history and discovered that what she was finding was the exact opposite of what she believed to be true. As her research continued she became more and more outraged as she realized that what she had thought was the truth was a deliberate hoax, fostered by the Arab world to maintain a perpetual conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. This book was the result.

Peters first sets out to demonstrate the true history of historical Palestine. She shows, quite accurately, the Roman destruction of "Judea", the invention of the term "Palestine", the continued presence of Jews in Palestine throughout the ages, despite intense persecution, the constant migrations in and out by assorted Moslem peoples (not Arabs primarily) and the severe under-population of the land in the 19th century. She then demonstrates the horrendous treatment of the Jews of the Moslem world, historically and in modern times as well.

This is the most original part of her book. Few sources have focused on the Jewish refugees of the Arab world even though entire populations were forced to flee without any of their material belongings. Because they were quickly absorbed into the Israeli population, their plight has never seemed important but it is vitally important when considering the moral "claims" of the Arab refugees.

Peters' gravest sin, in my opinion is that she becomes overwhelmed by her passions for her side of the story. It is hardly necessary for her to prove precisely how many Arabs lived in Palestine in 1880. To prove her point she merely needed to show the trend of Arab immigration and the restrictions on Jewish immigration. Any litigator or debater will concede that to ignore evidence which contradicts your thesis is deadly. Since in Peter's case, the contrary evidence or weaknesses in her own evidence are so readily explainable, her failure to present opposing points and refute them is particularly inexcusable. It just lends false credence to her adversary's claims. Peters is guilty of over-exuberance for her subject. But this kind of argument in the face of hostile opposition calls for cool reason. Extensive footnoting is no substitute for properly constructed argument. Ironically Peters, who had no personal devotion to Zionism and thus no need to justify it, ends up tarred with the brush of partisanship. One need not be "neutral" in thought to write a logical analysis defending Zionism and refuting its detractors. Benjamin Netanyahu did it in his book "A Durable Peace" where he does not shrink from responding to revisionist arguments. To the contrary he revels in it.

Again let me make it clear that I support Peters' thesis 100 percent. Those who condemn her are almost exclusively from the revisionist/anti-Israel camp. As they always do, they seek to obstruct the truth by throwing up a smokescreen. Peters did not need to provide them with the smoke. Not one critic has genuinely attacked her premise. Indeed, it is the revisionists who have been largely discredited by legitimate historians. This does not excuse these errors. Am I surprised to learn that the supporters of this book are Americans while Israeli and European academics have rejected it? Of course not. The Israeli academy is in thrall to the revisionists despite the fact that their works have been largely proven false and ideologically driven. The European academy is even more in thrall to the leftist ideology that utterly rejects Zionism. The European academy has become worse than useless. Of course individual exceptions apply. Two good British historians who wrote of the Arab-Israeli conflict are Paul Johnson and Martin Gilbert. American historians are an independent and diverse lot. I trust them more than European or Israeli academics.

Peters makes a number of cogent and important points about the conflict. Much of it is a rehash of previously known facts which have become largely forgotten in today's climate of relentless Arab propaganda. Her most original contribution to the debate is her contention that in any accounting of Arab suffering, the vast suffering of the Jews of the Muslim world needs to be considered as well. The book is not riveting, but is instead scholarly and at times pedantic. Peters could have lopped off several hundred pages and presented a stronger case for her clearly valid observations. For this reason, I would say there are better books than this one available.

Being a neutral outsider with regards to this conflict, I found that the book was an interesting read. Many of the author's findings were well researched and many of the points raised were valid and relevant to the conflict.... I did not find this book to be biased towards any side, considering that the amount of factual information presented by the author gave many of her arguments strong factual credibility.

Another interesting read is A travel guide to Palestine and Syria, published in 1906 by Karl Baedeker. This book illustrates such truths as that even when the Islamic Ottoman Empire ruled the region, the Muslim population in the city of Jerusalem was minimal. Many of the facts that we get today have been greatly distorted and works such as these, especially the 1906 book outline quite clearly the statistics of that era and how we can interpret these facts and figures to be relevant in todays Mideast conflict.

Joan Peters, a professional writer and researchers, received a grant from an Arab Foundation to write a history of the ancient roots of the Arab population in historic Palestine. The problem was that, when she actually began doing her research, she found that most of the common beliefs about the long history of that population are just inaccurate. In fact, she found that the majority of the current population descended from waves of migration beginning in the 19th century and peaking in the early 20th.

Peter's uses considerable primary source data, including the ottoman and British censuses and the travel journals of western visitors like Mark Twain, all of which prove that the area compromising modern day Israel and the West Bank were largely unpopulated in the 19th century and experienced waves of immigration from people looking for work. Even more controversial, she documents the existence of ancient Jewish communities on both sides of the Jordan River, in places like Jerusalem, Gaza, Hebron, Safed, Nablus, and others. Sadly, many of these communities were forced to flee Arab violence at the turn of the century. Thus Hebron, which has boasted a continual Jewish community for over 2,500 years, had no community between 1930-67 because the Jews had to flee for their lives. Yes, tPeters' book contains substantial flaws, particularly in her use of statistics in what can be called a "number's game" (the quote from the often maligned Daniel Pipes who demonstrates the greater intellectual honesty of pro-Israel intellectuals in his dissection and dismissal of Peters' work, a thing sadly seemingly always lacking from the Israel haters). Nonetheless, the central thesis is well worth considering.

Arieh Avneri's Claim of Dispossession: Jewish Land Settlement and the Arabs 1878-1948 adds considerable documentary evidence to this thesis and is also worth examination. Readers would also do well to review the works of the fine historian Benny Morris.

My own research into the Middle East over many years gave rise to considerable concern that vast numbers of people were being deceived over the Palestinian refugee problem. It was obvious to me that many 'untruths' and 'inflated figures' were being branded around by the Arab world in order to promote their stance over the Palestinian issue. I had searched for a book that would concentrate on the original historical facts upon which the issue is based and not on propaganda from either side in the conflict. This is that book. Ironically the author was originally employed by the Arab world to investigate the matter on their behalf. However, the facts speak for themselves and the Arab world have since predictably sought to denigrate the author wherever possible. However, to avoid any bias, the facts are there, together with their sources, for anyone honest enough who wishes to research the matter for themselves. I am not Jewish or Arab, and just wish that the public at large were for once, provided with the true facts about this matter. This book should be re-published immediately in view of the current Middle East crisis. Perhaps the politicians involved would do well to access the facts themselves. Thank you all for your time.

Despite this book's flaws and the criticism it drew from academic circles, it has its merits. Yes, this essay is biased, but much research was invested in it. It is not the "quick draw and cheap shot" type we frequently see today, but a significant work. In particular it raises some questions that need to be answered:
1) The Zionists bought lands in Palestine, but someone sold them the lands. Doesn't that make these (Arab) sellers partners?
2) During the British mandate, Arabs from neighboring countries "slipped" into Palestine, unnoticed. Even if the numbers she quotes are wrong, don't we need to address the point that some (who later became refugees) originated from elsewhere, exactly like immigrant Jews? (No, she doesn't convince that ALL Palestinians were new to the region).
3) The UN deals with refugees all over the world. Their numbers in Asia and Africa are staggering. However, for some reason, they don't get the attention Palestinians refugees do. Most are considered refugees for a couple of years and then resettled, others becoming the "new" refugees. Palestinians on the other hand, inherit the title, being refugees forever. Now, a third and forth generations (born in other countries) are still considered Palestinian refugees, their number always growing. What makes them different from others? Why the double standard?
4) Hundreds of thousands of Jews were kicked out of Muslim and Arab states in 1950s, many leaving their possessions behind. The difference is that unlike Palestinians they had a destination and place who welcomed them. Sure, Palestinians aren't responsible for that, but it sheds light on the difference neighboring Arab countries could make (in Palestinian refugees lives) if they wanted.
5) For 400 years Arabs lived under Ottoman rule. They didn't like it and the Turks didn't like the Arabs much. Arabs sought their independence, but without really questioning the Ottoman occupation "legitimacy". The Ottomans were ruthless occupiers, who used harsh punishments, high taxation and confiscations (for their military effort), but the Arabs "understood" it. When the British took over, the same Arabs became reluctant to accept the new occupiers. Later, when the Jews came, they became ABSOLUTELY illegitimate in Arab minds. Why?

For a controversial polemic, this is a pretty tame and well-documented attempt to clear up some misconceptions that are surprisingly prevalent about the Arab-Jewish conflict. Some of the material is speculative, but it is well worth reading for those who like to draw their own conclusions. Few books do as good a job as this one of explaining why so many Jews and Arabs in the Middle East are so upset both with each other and with some of the people who have attempted to act as mediators in their dispute.

"From Time Immemorial" contains a great deal of useful reference material for those interested in the Arab-Jewish conflict. It's interesting and thought-provoking. I sincerely recommend it.

Peters spent 7 years searching Arab, United Nations, League of Nations, British, French, Israeli, Turkish and Ottoman and other records. This book, with more than 1,800 citations, should be required reading for every Middle East reporter.

Peters shows that for 70 years before Israel's independence, there was considerable Arab immigration INTO Palestine--a history confirmed among others by Arieh Avneri's pre-Peters book, The Claim of Dispossession: Jewish Land Settlement and the Arabs, 1878-1948. This began in 1878, when Jewish settlers joined tens of thousands of Jews whose families lived in Palestine for two millennia after it was sacked by the Romans in 70 AD.

She shows at length that while Palestine was later conquered by a long parade of others--including Muslims, Crusaders, Saracens, and finally the Ottoman Empire--none ever drove the Jews out completely.

Peters provides documentation by many non-Jewish 19th century travelers, including Mark Twain (Innocents Abroad) and French and British envoys, of a desolate Palestine, whose small population included long-established Jewish communities in Jerusalem, Safed, Nablus, Jericho and other towns. In the 1870s, Jewish settlers from the Middle East and Europe began joining their co-religionists in Palestine. Arab immigration increased as Jewish development raised economic conditions far above those of neighboring Arab countries. Jewish farmers bought land at above-market prices from absentee effendi landlords in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere, employing both Arabs and Jews. Arabs also came for jobs in the government and building the railroads, roads and Haifa port.

Peters also notes a long history of Arab aggression against Israel, and before that, Jews. In the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, she shows that Arab pogroms killed thousands of Jews and destroyed many Jewish West Bank and Gaza communities established long before the 1948 war, some for hundreds or thousands of years. This followed a pattern of abuse, Peters demonstrates, which dominated much of the Arab world for 1,000 years. There, Jews were a minority, often (though not always) oppressed--subject to periodic rapes, massacres, dispersion and other horrors.

A former journalist and peace negotiator, Peters shows that over time reporters have revised history and accepted the false thesis that Palestinian Arabs were peace-loving victims of Jewish aggressors, while ignoring voluminous Arab propaganda proving the exact opposite. In 1948, for example, Hajj Amin el-Husseini--the British-appointed Jerusalem mufti--called for a war of annihilation against the Jews, a threat repeated by Gamel Naser in 1967....

As Peters notes, the League of Nations' Palestine Mandate--adopted with the blessings of Sharif Hussein of Mecca and King Faisal of Iraq--included TransJordan. Britain unilaterally gave more than 75% of Palestine to Emir Abdullah. He illegally expelled 100,000 Jewish residents from that part of what international law had designated a National Home for the Jews. Jordan, she writes, is a de facto Palestinian Arab state. Moreover, she notes, at the prompting of Arab Nazi collaborators, Britain all but closed Palestine's doors to Europe's Jews in 1939--effectively greasing the wheels of Hitler's war against them.

Finally, Peters shows that Israeli self-defense has never equaled Arab aggression or the hate that she documents so thoroughly.

A particularly vindictive 1986 criticism of this book was unraveled in a July 1986 Commentary article by Erich and Rael Jean Isaac. It noted that the author made serious errors, and failed to correct them when the essay was later republished in a book.

More important, even Peters' worst Israeli detractors do not contest her basic premise --- that Palestine's Arab population ballooned by virtue of Arab immigration. After all, her sources include an interview with Tewfik Bey El-Hurani, published in August 1934, which stated "in the last few months, from 30,000 to 36,000 Huranese [Syrians] had entered Palestine and settled there."

If anything, Peters understates her case. Supporting evidence includes the testimony of Moshe Shertok and Eliahu Epstein, given to the Palestine Royal Commission, who visited 30 Hurani villages and complained of an influx of Huranis. In 35 Western Palestine regions that became Israel, the Arab population rose 135% from 1922 and 1947, compared to a 98% increase in 13 regions of Jewish settlement. But in cities REMOVED from Jewish development--Nablus, Jenin and Hebron--Arab population grew at much slower 56%, 78% and 64% rates, respectively. Avraham Brawer in 1949 similarly compared Western Palestine's population with far less dense populations of neighboring Arab countries.

In other words, Peters is correct: Jewish development fueled Arab migration into Palestine and, consequently, a large proportion of Arab population growth.

Readers in doubt should also consult Arieh Avneri. So should anyone who cares about truth and justice.

---Alyssa A. Lappen

Though Peters is ruthlessly partisan in her selection of source material, she raises incredibly important questions about the often overlooked issues of Arab in-migration during the British Mandate and rather than merely limiting the focus to just Palestinian refugees, she widens the view to all refugees in the twentieth century and demonstrates that for very political reasons the Arabs of Palestine who were refugees after the 1948 War of Independence were not handled in the same way that nearly every other group was, namely resettlement and assimilation.

Her work has some flaws, to be sure, but nearly every book on this subject that attempts thoughtful analysis is going to suffer to some extent from the author's personal bias. What is remarkable is that she started the book very clearly on one side of the issue and, after her research, she had come a full 180 degrees to the opposite perspective.

I rate it highly because it asks questions no one seems to be addressing and points out facts and observations that no one seems to be talking about....

It's a bumpy ride through the wealth of information that Joan Peters presents.

Whatever you thought you knew about the Arab-Israel conflict, this book will tell you that there is lots more to learn.

Peters has done incredible research. Her sources are extensive.

Because she dislodges many sacrosanct theories, a campaign long has been underway to discredit "From Time Immemorial." So I was interested to know what a Harvard Ph.D candidate in Middle Eastern Studies would say about it. I asked. His response: "Excellent."

Read it and learn.

From Time Immemorial - Joan Peters produced the best factual book regarding the Arab-Israel conflict. Must use as a resource. A great work of scholarship.