Industrial Deals Beauty Save up to 90% on textbooks STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc PCB for Musical Instruments Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Wedding Rustic Decor Home Gift Guide Off to College Home Gift Guide Book House Cleaning TheTick TheTick TheTick  Introducing Echo Show Limited-time offer: All-New Fire 7 Kids Edition, starting at $79.99 Kindle Oasis hots Water Sports STEMClubToys17_gno
Customer Discussions > History forum

A Forum to answer Lilyokalani questions

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 7, 2013, 8:58:01 AM PST
Sixties Fan says:
Hi Diva,

Thanks, one can only try. She has her reasons, as devoid of facts as they may be.
That is why we have Judeophobia and anti-semitism.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 7, 2013, 9:03:52 AM PST
Sixties Fan says:
Sorry, I have to disagree about your Obama comment.
Obama is not giving US land away, nor is he going against the will of the majority.
You may think Obama does things to please the Arabs, and it may be true, but so have all the countries which voted at the UN to recognize the broken, no money to pay anyone, PA's intent to take over all of Palestine by calling the PA now Palestine State.
At least the US was against it and voted against it.

I cannot say the same about Europe, most of South America and Central America, Russia, China and others who have business interests before and now with the Oil Arab countries, and are doing this to make sure that the oil continues to come their way.

Posted on Jan 7, 2013, 3:44:10 PM PST
Interviews with six former Shin Bet heads : The Gatekeepers
The six men interviewed have decades of blood on their hands. Reflection perhaps seeks redemption.

by Stephen Lendman

"The Gatekeepers" is an exploration of Israel's Shin Bet security agency, guided by all six living domestic intelligence chiefs.
Dror Moreh is one of Israel's leading cinematographers. Last October, his documentary featuring candid dialogues with former Shin Bet heads debuted in New York.
They attended the Israeli premier. Joseph Cedar's drama Footnote was included. More on film content below.
In early 2013, other Western venues will show it. Over the weekend, it premiered at Tel Aviv's Cinematheque.
Segmented titles include Forget Morality, Collateral Damage, and One Man's Enemy is Another Man's Freedom Fighter.
On December 18, Haaretz headlined "Israeli film makes critics' best of 2012 list, moves closer to Oscar."
It's won other international awards. It stops well short of telling all. It's still must viewing. It reveals what Israeli supporters need to know. Palestinians, of course, can explain best.
New York Times and Los Angeles Times film critics call it one of the best 2012 documentaries. It made the Academy Awards' short list.
On November 25, New York Times film critic AO Scott headlined "Six Israeli Spymasters on a Shadowy Past and a Dark Future," saying:
They're retired. They reflected "about past triumphs and frustrations." Avraham Shalom, Yaakov Peri, Carmi Gillon, Ami Avalon, Avi Dichter, and Yuval Diskin were interviewed.
They approved the film. Their views reflected former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's warning that Israel faced national suicide if decades of occupation didn't end.
Extremist settlers reflect much about Israel's dark side. Messianic interlopers have no place in civil society.
Perhaps fears of Israel's demise motivated them to speak. Doing so may help save the country, they likely feel. Gillon said "We are making the lives of millions miserable."
Outspoken Israeli intellectual Yeshayahu Leibowitz (1903 - 1994) warned that governing occupied "foreigners" would transform Israel into "a Shin Bet state."
Zionists can't admit that indigenous Palestinians lived in today's Israel for centuries. Calling them "foreigners" demeans their longstanding ties to land rightfully theirs.
Israel stole it. Who in a current or past position of power dares say so?
Shin Bet heads are assassins. The six men interviewed have decades of blood on their hands. Reflection perhaps seeks redemption.
It's much too late to matter. Atonement isn't in Israel's vocabulary. It's hard imagining they're comments will influence current policy. It's worse now than ever.
Moreh's film is "amazing (and) upsetting," said Scott. It covers ground rarely seen on film or discussed publicly. It challenges "conventional wisdom on all sides of the conflict."
Candid interviews revealed "devastating assessments of the failings of successive (Israeli) governments."
Yaakov Peri ran Shin Bet from 1988 - 1994. He was there during the first Intifada and Oslo. "I think after retiring from this job you become a bit of a leftist," he said.
He and others interviewed aren't doves. While critical of occupation harshness, they're largely mindless about Palestinian suffering. Only Israel's future matters. It prompted them to speak out.
Avraham Shalom headed Shin Bet from 1981 - 1986. He resigned after being accused of ordering two Palestinian prisoners killed and orchestrating a subsequent cover-up.
On the one hand, he defended Shin Bet tactics. On the other, he called Israel's future "very dark." He lamented about occupation harshness. It's a legacy perhaps he'd like to forget.
He's not alone. Others interviewed expressed similar views.
Scott called them "rare, (and) welcome (with) almost unbearable clarity." He exaggerated to make a point.
Los Angeles Times film critic Kenneth Turan called Moreh's documentary "more than simply eye-opening." It's "potent enough to alter how you see the world," he said.
Perhaps a little, but not enough.
Moreh did what seemed impossible. He convinced six former spymasters to discuss what's kept secret. They ran Shin Bet from 1981 - 2011. They spoke publicly for the first time.
They revealed snippets of Israel's dark history. They stopped well short of telling all. What's most important was omitted. Why they said anything they'll have to explain.
They "demonstrate(d) how soul-destroying it can be (to) mandate behavior that may seem amoral or even immoral."

They stopped well short of agonizing over what they did. Late in life conscience pangs ring hollow. Other priorities got them to say anything.
At the same time, they support Palestinian self-determination. They expressed disdain for Israeli opposition.
They said Palestinian resistance is justified. Israeli leaders don't address it. Confronting it violently reflects state terrorism. Israel should talk to Hamas.
Shalom shocked viewers. He called Israeli occupation no different from Nazi occupied Europe. If current Israeli, American, or other Western politicians suggested this, they'd be run out of town next election.
On December 30 Haaretz contributor Gideon Levy discussed the film. Shin Bet leaders do dirty work, he said. It affords them "an aura of prestige and esteem."
"Oh, how we applaud our spooks." Two former Shin Bet heads became cabinet ministers. Another was successful in business. Murder, Inc. rewards its bosses. Doves have no place in Israeli society.
"This jolting film is a must-see," said Levy. "A feeling of nausea and of deep disgust wells up at its end." Occupation truths are told. Some but way short of all.
Responsible assassins explained. Mea culpas were omitted. They stopped well short of admitting responsibility for unspeakable crimes.
They have lots more explaining to do. They admitted "being blinkered." They didn't examine the consequences of their actions.
Coming together on film "resembl(es) a mafia movie." They speak like dons. Each did it his own way. They fell far short of entirely frank.
They were "subcontractors" in Israel's "war on terror." They knew their job was lawless, immoral and inhumane. Shalom claimed "There is no morality." Might alone makes right.
When it's too late to matter, they spoke. They're hardly profiles in courage. Where were they when policies they mandated could have made a difference?
They prioritized assassinations, torture, and other forms of abuse. They helped institutionalize lawlessness. They made Israel a police state.
"Now they remember to say that the Palestinian problem cannot be solved with force." It's high time they stressed an Israeli problem.
"Rolling their eyes, they pass responsibility onto the political leadership." They were part of its disreputable past. They could have acted responsibly.
They could have refused to commit crimes. They could have supported right over wrong. They chose other priorities. Unspeakable cruelty reflects them. They'll carry them to their graves.
Palestinian rage followed "monstrous methods" they used. Then and now, they include beatings, torture, humiliation, other forms of abuse, and cold-blooded murder.
They admit crimes this grave. They remain unaccountable. They fall well short of remorse. They expressed no regrets. Why should they? They're heroes. Israel "cheer(s) them on."

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 7, 2013, 4:30:09 PM PST
Sixties Fan says:
Another piece of trash "reporting" from our Nazi friendly "Veterans News Now"

Ho, ho, ho

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 7, 2013, 9:09:20 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 25, 2013, 5:40:08 AM PST]

Posted on Jan 10, 2013, 9:24:29 PM PST
Lientje says:
Schwarz: "He has to pollute Amazon wherever he decides to post with his Jewish news. What can we say about dysfunctional LAD besides the fact he has serious Jew envy? "

You don't believe that any more than I do.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 11, 2013, 7:09:25 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 25, 2013, 5:40:43 AM PST]

Posted on Jan 11, 2013, 7:32:18 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Jul 7, 2013, 2:02:35 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 11, 2013, 8:37:46 AM PST
Sixties Fan says:
What, Lily !

No questions which would require some answers?

Only insult trading?

Try asking a meaninful question about the land the Jews stole.

Or maybe you should ask a meaninful question about all the land the Arabs have stolen.

This thread is here just for you to ask, and get or give questions.

Make good use of it. Don't waste it as you keep wasting almost every post in about every other thread.

Posted on Jan 11, 2013, 9:45:53 AM PST
L. King says:
re: Lily: Apparently she [Golda Meir] was as dumb as she was ugly.

Apparently Golda didn't match up to Lily's Aryan standards of beauty. Then again, she was a progressive socialist and felt that actions were more important than wearing makeup.

Here's some more quotes from Golda:

Fashion is an imposition, a reign on freedom.

Not being beautiful was the true blessing. Not being beautiful forced me to develop my inner resources. The pretty girl has a handicap to overcome. (Take note of this, Lily. You have quite a handicap to overcome.)

Old age is like a plane flying through a storm. Once you're aboard, there's nothing you can do.

We don't thrive on military acts. We do them because we have to, and thank God we are efficient.

America is a great country. It has many shortcomings, many social inequalities, and it's tragic that the problem of the blacks wasn't solved fifty or even a hundred years ago, but it's still a great country, a country full of opportunities, of freedom! Does it seem nothing to you to be able to say what you like, even against the government, the Establishment?

It's no accident many accuse me of conducting public affairs with my heart instead of my head. Well, what if I do? . . . Those who don't know how to weep with their whole heart don't know how to laugh either.

A very smart woman.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 11, 2013, 9:56:41 AM PST
jeffesq613 says:
I believe it was Fred Sanford who used to say "Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly is to the bone." In Lily's case, however, the ugliness penetrates far deeper than the bone.

Posted on Jan 11, 2013, 10:40:45 AM PST
Sixties Fan says:
Answers to questions Lily will not ask, and will not give proof of to her own saying that "The Jews stole Palestinian Land" .

What justification do Jews have for "stealing Palestinian land"?

Quite possibly one of the most frequently asked questions and, unfortunately, one of the least addressed. The problem is not that there is no justification - there is, as will soon be detailed - but rather there are two other big problems which make this question so controversial. The first problem is that most of those who ask this question are not truly seeking an answer to it. They are seeking to delegitimize Israel and whenever they are faced with irrefutable answers they simply refuse to hear them. The second problem is that most of those who are on the receiving end of this question are not knowledgeable enough on the matter to provide a sufficient answer. That being said, we will do our part in eliminating the second problem and providing a solid, comprehensive answer, but you, the reader, must eliminate the first problem and be ready to accept facts for what they are.

Given the complex nature of this question we will break it down into the following three sub-questions:

- What is the origin and history of Palestine?
- What is the origin and history of the Palestinians?
- What is the basis of the Jewish claim to the land?

Once we address these three questions we will then proceed to give a general response to the main question at hand.

Part 1

Posted on Jan 11, 2013, 10:45:18 AM PST
Sixties Fan says:
Part 2

What is the origin and history of Palestine?

The name Palestine is derived from the name Palaestina which originated in the year 135 C.E. Prior to this point the land consisted of two sovereignties known as the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah, both part of the Biblical nation of Israel. In the year 135 C.E., Roman Emperor Hadrian changed the name to Palaestina after he suppressed the Bar Kokhba Revolt and took full control of the land. His reason for choosing this particular name was to spite the Jews, deriving it from the name "Philistines" - the greatest enemies of the Jews in Biblical times. It should be noted that the Biblical Philistines were of south-east European origin and died out over 2,500 years ago, having no connection to the Palestinians of today. Palaestina would then continuously be part of constantly changing empires over the centuries, virtually never becoming a sovereignty unto itself. It would become known as Palestine during the time of the European Renaissance, between the 14th and 17th centuries. The last empire to control Palestine would be the Ottoman Empire, until it was taken over by the British in 1917. The British Mandate for Palestine was established and officially recognized by the League of Nations in 1922, coming into full effect in 1923. In 1947, the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was presented in order to form two separate states - one Jewish and one Arab. The Jews accepted the partition plan while the Arabs rejected it. Later in 1947, civil war broke out, leading to the termination of the British Mandate and the establishment of the State of Israel on May 14th 1948. The next day, on May 15th 1948, surrounding Arab armies launched a war on Israel - later to become known as Israel's War of Independence - which resulted in the Green Line demarcation with the defeat of the Arab armies. On June 5th 1967, following periods of increasing tension between Israel and its Arab neighbors, a preemptive attack was
aunched by Israel on Egypt, Syria and Jordan - what would become the Six Day War. With the defeat of the Arab armies, Israel took control of the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, Judea and Samaria (a.k.a. the West Bank), East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Under a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula by 1982. Likewise, for the sake of peace, Israel relinquished the Gaza Strip in 2005. Instead of peace, thousands of rockets have been fired on Israel's southern cities from Gaza and a Jewish soldier, Gilad Shalit, was held captive for over five years, later to be exchanged for over 1,000 convicted murderers and terrorists.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 11, 2013, 10:58:26 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Jul 7, 2013, 2:02:49 PM PDT]

Posted on Jan 11, 2013, 11:01:53 AM PST
Sixties Fan says:
Part 3

What is the origin and history of the Palestinians?

Until the early 20th's century, the term Palestinians never existed. Preceding the onset of Zionism, the general population of Palestine consisted of an Arab majority along with Jewish and Christian minorities - yet it should be noted that none have succeeded in establishing a sovereign state since the days the land became known as Palaestina. Palestine had virtually always belonged to one empire or another and its inhabitants were never exclusively of any particular race or religion. It was only with the onset of Zionism that the term Palestinians would be coined in an effort to suppress Zionism. Even then, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the name Palestine was often predominantly attributed to Jews. The Palestine Post, for instance, was an exclusively Jewish newspaper, now known as the Jerusalem Post. Likewise with the Palestine Symphony Orchestra, an exclusively Jewish orchestra, now known as the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra. Likewise with the Palestine Brigade Regiment which consisted exclusively of Jewish volunteers in the British WWII Army. The more Zionism grew, the more of a threat Arabs perceived and the more they tried to fabricate a cultural connection to Palestine, a political tool that would enable them to stand against Zionism till this very day. The term Palestinians did not receive official recognition until the establishment of the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) in 1964 - 16 years after the establishment of the State of Israel. So who are the Palestinians? From a strictly historical standpoint - there is no such people. They are Arabs who have never had any cultural, religious, political or national connection to Palestine; who have merely dwelled in the land in relatively small numbers alongside Jews and Christians; and, who have always openly admitted that the term Palestinians is nothing but a political tool aimed to end Zionism, to put an end to Israel as a Jewish state.

Posted on Jan 11, 2013, 11:11:47 AM PST
Sixties Fan says:
Part 4

What is the basis of the Jewish claim to the land?

This is a question with several answers, one from each of the following points of view - religious, cultural, rational and legal. We will address each one individually.

Religiously, the Tanakh (the Jewish Bible) clearly states that G-d has given the Land of Israel to the Jews for all time (Genesis 13:15, 48:3-4). The Tanakh is also clear about the fact that the Jews would be exiled from the land but would eventually return to it, to their land (Deuteronomy 30:3-5, Ezekiel 20:34, Isaiah 11:11-12). It should be noted that both Christianity and Islam, the two primary adversaries who claim ownership to the land, accept the Tanakh as being divine and authentic, yet despite this have somehow convinced themselves that it has an expiration date. Being that the Tanakh is an eternal covenant, this is not only a contradiction of the Tanakh itself but also of these two religions that have accepted its divinity and authenticity.

Culturally, the Tanakh, virtually all other Jewish literature, as well as many historical books and documents from different nations of the world, testify that Jews have lived and prospered in the Land of Israel for many centuries. Jerusalem, for instance, is mentioned 667 times in the Tanakh. It is not mentioned even once in the Koran. Every Jewish prayer book is filled with prayers and blessings which implore G-d to bring the Jews back to their Jewish homeland - the Land of Israel. Virtually every Jewish text that has been written over the past 3,300 years mentions Israel as being the homeland of the Jewish people. Excavations over the past century, and especially in more recent years with advancing technology, constantly find artifacts that attest to the Jewish claim to Israel. Historically, it is impossible to deny the unbreakable connection between Jews and their homeland, Israel.

Rationally, Jews have only had one homeland throughout their entire history. Over the past two thousand years of exile Jews have lived in virtually every corner of the world, but none has ever become a homeland despite their efforts to integrate and start anew. On the contrary, the more they would try to integrate the more they would become oppressed. Jews have not had a moment's rest throughout their long exile. With all the Inquisitions, Crusades, Pogroms and Holocausts - Jews can say with certainty, as can any rational person with common sense, that there is only one place in the world where Jews can hope for peace - the Land of Israel, the Jewish homeland. It should be noted that the Arabs who claim ownership to the land, they themselves have 22 countries which are about 640 times the size of Israel. Not to mention that many of these countries are flowing with oil and other valuable resources. Israel is the only Jewish country, smaller than any one of those 22 Arab countries, with no oil and few valuable resources. It should also be noted that the State of Israel today makes up only a tiny fraction of the entire Land of Israel as based on Biblical boundaries, yet Jews are not asking for more. On the contrary, Jews have relinquished plenty of land since the establishment of the State of Israel for the sake of peace - which, unfortunately, despite all efforts has proven to be counterproductive.

Legally, the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine has given Jews the right to portions of the land which legally belonged to the British prior to that point. Upon Arab refusal to accept this partition plan, waging war against the Jews and losing that war - the Jews have obtained additional portions of the land in accordance with international law. Likewise, the land that has been obtained as a result of the Six Day War has also been obtained in accordance with international law.

Posted on Jan 11, 2013, 11:13:23 AM PST
Sixties Fan says:
Part 5

Now, back to the original question: What justification do Jews have for "stealing Palestinian land"?

First and foremost, based on the facts that have been presented it becomes clear that there was never such a thing as Palestinian land. There was Jewish land which was temporarily known as Palestine and was never the official legal land of the Arabs who, today, call themselves Palestinians and claim the land. Secondly, Jews never stole land from anyone, let alone from a people that did not even officially exist before the land was "stolen". Jews legally re-acquired their own land from the British; the only land they can ever truly call home; a land promised to them for eternity in the Tanakh, which has been accepted by both Christianity and Islam; a land for which they longed for nearly 2,000 years; a land to which they have every right religiously, culturally, rationally and legally.

This begs the question: Why do the Arabs ignore all of these facts and persist with their claims? The answer - Islam. Islam requires Muslims to fight for any land that has been settled by Muslims. Islam also requires Muslims to kill Jews, being that it is Jews who constitute the greatest threat to the Islamic goal of world dominance. Islam is what drives Muslims to brainwash their children into believing that Jews are the aggressor who must be stopped by all means necessary, just as they have been brainwashed into believing. Islam is what drives Muslims to ignore not only historical facts, but also to ignore the very fact that by accepting the Tanakh as divine and authentic, which clearly states that it in itself is an eternal covenant between G-d and the Jews, and then revoking that covenant, their own religion is a contradiction in itself. Islam is what drives Muslims to ignore the fact that their religion contradicts truth, justice and humanity. Finally, Islam is what drives Muslims to use violence to spread their religion, because violence is all they have - or perhaps, all they had - until the "Palestinian cause" fell into their hands. Nothing is a better tool for Muslims than the "Palestinian cause" to achieve their goals. Fortunately for them, most of the world is turning a blind eye to historical facts as well as to the teachings of Islam, allowing them to successfully spread their propaganda and gain international support. That being said, it should be noted though that not all Arabs are Muslims, there are those who truly do want peace with Jews and accept Israel as Jewish land, but, the problem is that they are relatively few in number and most keep silent out of fear for their lives.

Posted on Jan 11, 2013, 11:32:48 AM PST
Sixties Fan says:
`They Stole Our Land' vs. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem

November 25, 2011 By David Meir-Levi

Part 1

The cornerstone argument in the Arab narrative against Israel is that the Zionists in the 19th and early 20th centuries came to the Land of Israel and stole Arab land. This is a very simple assertion, easy to visualize, seemingly logical and amenable to a brief presentation: after all, Zionists did come from Europe to what was then Palestine, and the Arabs were already living there. So obviously when the Jews came they took Arab land.

Although there exists voluminous evidence to the contrary in Arab and Turkish and British sources indicating the exact opposite, it is difficult to present this contrary evidence and explain its importance in as brief and simple a manner as is done with the Arab assertion. There are too many variables: Arab demographics, Jewish demographics, Zionist agrarian reclamation technology, land purchases, crown land vs. privately owned land, absentee landlords, etc. This imbalance puts the advocate on behalf of Zionism and Israel at a disadvantage, even though the evidence supporting the Israeli narrative and contradicting the Arab narrative is vast and thoroughly vetted. For an excellent compilation and analysis of this evidence, see Kenneth Stein, The Land Question in Palestine, 1917-1939 (University of North Carolina Press, 1984, reviewed here and here).

However, there is one testimony from an unimpeachable source stating that the Jews stole no land, but rather bought land in vast quantities from willing sellers who were the legal owners of the land that was sold. This unimpeachable source is so unarguably innocent of any pro-Israel or pro-Jewish or pro-Zionist sentiment that there can be no rational question regarding the veracity of his testimony. That source is the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the Hajj Mohammed Effendi Amin el-Husseini (1895 to 1974).

El-Husseini was a key figure in the creation of the concept of Palestinian nationalism and the most high-profile leader of violent and incendiary opposition to Zionism from the 1920's onward, until the creation of the State of Israel rendered his leadership irrelevant. He used his powerful political and religious position as the Grand Mufti (supreme religious leader) of Jerusalem to promote Arab nationalism, incite violence against the British, and preach Jew-hatred and the annihilation of the Jews of British Mandatory Palestine. He was an ally of Hitler before and during World War II, recruited Muslim legions in Bosnia to serve on the eastern front in Hitler's Weirmacht, and developed full-blown plans for concentration camps in Palestine in imitation of the German "final solution." During the 1948 Israel-Arab war, he represented the Arab Higher Committee and rejected the UN partition plan of November 29, 1947 (for a brief biography of el-Husseini and a list of book-length biographies see here).

As the highest official representative of the Arabs of British Mandatory Palestine, el-Husseini was interviewed by the Palestine Royal Commission led by Earl William Robert Wellesley Peel, hence known as the Peel Commission.

The Peel Commission was a Royal Commission of inquiry sent to British Mandatory Palestine in November of 1936 for the purpose of examining and reporting on the causes of the Arab-Jewish violence in Palestine and suggesting possible resolutions. After months of research and interviews of major Zionist and Arab leaders, the Commission published its report in July of 1937. The report recommended a partition plan for separate Arab and Jewish states; but this plan was never implemented, although the Zionists accepted it, due to vociferous Arab opposition.

The Peel Commission report had some very salutary things to say about the Zionists and their impact on the land and on Arab society and economy. One of the most important for debunking Arab anti-Israel accusations is:

"The Arab population shows a remarkable increase since 1920, and it has had some share in the increased prosperity of Palestine. Many Arab landowners have benefited from the sale of land and the profitable investment of the purchase money. The fellaheen (Arab peasants) are better off on the whole than they were in 1920. This Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the (Jewish) National Home. In particular, the Arabs have benefited from social services which could not have been provided on the existing scale without the revenue obtained from the Jews...Much of the land (being farmed by the Jews) now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased...There was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land." The land shortage decried by the Arabs "...was due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population." (Chapter V in the report).

El-Husseini's interview on January 12, 1937 was preserved in the Commission's notes and referenced, although not published, in the full report. It has been summarized by a number of scholars, including Kenneth Stein, The Land Question in Palestine 1917-1939 (Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2009) and Howard M. Sachar, A History of Israel from the Rise of Zionism to our Time (Alfred A. Knopf, 1976); and a detailed analysis with quotations from the interview can be found in Aaron Kleiman's The Palestine Royal Commission, 1937 (Garland Publications, 1987, pp. 298ff.).

The selections from the interview presented below can be found on line here and here. Sir Laurie Hammond, a member of the Peel Commission, interviewed the Mufti about his insistence to the Commission that Zionists were stealing Arab land and driving peasants into homelessness. He spoke through an interpreter.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Would you give me the figures again for the land. I want to know how much land was held by the Jews before the Occupation.

MUFTI: At the time of the Occupation the Jews held about 100,000 dunams.

SIR L. HAMMOND: What year?

MUFTI: At the date of the British Occupation.

SIR L. HAMMOND: And now they hold how much?

MUFTI: About 1,500,000 dunams: 1,200,000 dunams already registered in the name of the Jewish holders, but there are 300,000 dunams which are the subject of written agreements, and which have not yet been registered in the Land Registry. That does not, of course, include the land which was assigned, about 100,000 dunams.

SIR L. HAMMOND: What 100,000 dunams was assigned? Is that not included in, the 1,200,000 dunams? The point is this. He says that in 1920 at the time of the Occupation, the Jews only held 100,000 dunams, is that so? I asked the figures from the Land Registry, how much land the Jews owned at the time of the Occupation. Would he be surprised to hear that the figure is not 100,000 but 650,000 dunams?

Posted on Jan 11, 2013, 11:34:36 AM PST
Sixties Fan says:
Part 2

MUFTI: It may be that the difference was due to the fact that many lands were bought by contract which were not registered.

SIR L. HAMMOND: There is a lot of difference between 100,000 and 650,000.

MUFTI: In one case they sold about 400,000 dunams in one lot.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Who? An Arab?

MUFTI: Sarsuk. An Arab of Beyrouth.

SIR L. HAMMOND: His Eminence gave us a picture of the Arabs being evicted from their land and villages being wiped out. What I want to know is, did the Government of Palestine, the Administration, acquire the land and then hand it over to the Jews?

MUFTI: In most cases the lands were acquired.

SIR L. HAMMOND: I mean forcibly acquired-compulsory acquisition as land would be acquired for public purposes?

MUFTI: No, it wasn't.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Not taken by compulsory acquisition?


SIR L. HAMMOND: But these lands amounting to some 700,000 dunams were actually sold?

MUFTI: Yes, they were sold, but the country was placed in such conditions as would facilitate such purchases.

SIR I HAMMOND: I don't quite understand what you mean by that. They were sold. Who sold them?

MUFTI: Land owners.


MUFTI: In most cases they were Arabs.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Was any compulsion put on them to sell? If so, by whom?

MUFTI: As in other countries, there are people who by force of circumstances, economic forces, sell their land.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Is that all he said?

MUFTI: A large part of these lands belong to absentee landlords who sold the land over the heads of their tenants, who were forcibly evicted. The majority of these landlords were absentees who sold their land over the heads of their tenants. Not Palestinians but Lebanese.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Is His Eminence in a position to give the Commission a list of the people, the Arabs who have sold lands, apart from those absentee landlords?

MUFTI: It is possible for me to supply such a list.

SIR L. HAMMOND: I ask him now this: does he think that as compared with the standard of life under the Turkish rule the position of the fellahin in the villages has improved or deteriorated?

MUFTI: Generally speaking I think their situation has got worse.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Is taxation heavier or lighter?

MUFTI: Taxation was much heavier then, but now there are additional burdens.

SIR L. HAMMOND: I am asking him if it is now, the present day, as we are sitting together here, is it a fact that the fellahin has a much lighter tax than he had under the Turkish rule? Or is he taxed more heavily?

MUFTI: The present taxation is lighter, but the Arabs nevertheless have now other taxation, for instance, customs.

LORD PEEL: And the condition of the fellahin as regards, for example, education. Are there more schools or fewer schools now?

MUFTI: They may have more schools, comparatively, but at the same time there has been an increase in their numbers.

The Hajj Amin el-Husseini, the intractable opponent of Zionism, a Jew-hater on par with Hitler, admitted under questioning that no Arab land was stolen; no Arabs were wiped out, no villages destroyed. Rather, the Jews bought hundreds of thousands of dunam (about ¼ of an acre) of land from willing sellers, often from absentee Arab landowners. Moreover, thanks in part to the Zionists and the British, the quality of life for Palestine's Arab peasantry was vastly improved, with less taxation, more schools, and an increase in Arab population.

The next time someone spouts the Arab line about how Zionists came and stole Arab land and drove Arabs out, just quote the Mufti.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Posted on Jan 11, 2013, 12:38:38 PM PST
Sixties Fan says:

Myths & Facts Online:
The Mandatory Period
By Mitchell G. Bard

Part 1


"The British helped the Jews displace the native Arab population of Palestine." top


Herbert Samuel

Herbert Samuel, a British Jew who served as the first High Commissioner of Palestine, placed restrictions on Jewish immigration "in the `interests of the present population' and the `absorptive capacity' of the country."1 The influx of Jewish settlers was said to be forcing the Arab fellahin (native peasants) from their land. This was at a time when less than a million people lived in an area that now supports more than nine million.

The British actually limited the absorptive capacity of Palestine when, in 1921, Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill severed nearly four-fifths of Palestine-some 35,000 square miles-to create a brand new Arab entity, Transjordan. As a consolation prize for the Hejaz and Arabia (which are both now Saudi Arabia) going to the Saud family, Churchill rewarded Sherif Hussein's son Abdullah for his contribution to the war against Turkey by installing him as Transjordan's emir.

The British went further and placed restrictions on Jewish land purchases in what remained of Palestine, contradicting the provision of the Mandate (Article 6) stating that "the Administration of Palestine . . . ​shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency . . . R03;close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not acquired for public purposes." By 1949, the British had allotted 87,500 acres of the 187,500 acres of cultivable land to Arabs and only 4,250 acres to Jews. 2

Ultimately, the British admitted the argument about the absorptive capacity of the country was specious. The Peel Commission said: "The heavy immigration in the years 1933-36 would seem to show that the Jews have been able to enlarge the absorptive capacity of the country for Jews." 3

Posted on Jan 11, 2013, 12:44:24 PM PST
Sixties Fan says:
Part 2


"The British allowed Jews to flood Palestine while Arab immigration was tightly controlled." top


The British response to Jewish immigration set a precedent of appeasing the Arabs, which was followed for the duration of the Mandate. The British placed restrictions on Jewish immigration while allowing Arabs to enter the country freely. Apparently, London did not feel that a flood of Arab immigrants would affect the country's absorptive capacity.

During World War I, the Jewish population in Palestine declined because of the war, famine, disease and expulsion by the Turks. In 1915, approximately 83,000 Jews lived in Palestine among 590,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs. According to the 1922 census, the Jewish population was 84,000, while the Arabs numbered 643,000. 4 Thus, the Arab population grew exponentially while that of the Jews stagnated.

In the mid-1920s, Jewish immigration to Palestine increased primarily because of anti-Jewish economic legislation in Poland and Washington's imposition of restrictive quotas. 5

The record number of immigrants in 1935 (see table) was a response to the growing persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany. The British administration considered this number too large, however, so the Jewish Agency was informed that less than one-third of the quota it asked for would be approved in 1936. 6

The British gave in further to Arab demands by announcing in the 1939 White Paper that an independent Arab state would be created within 10 years, and that Jewish immigration was to be limited to 75,000 for the next five years, after which it was to cease altogether. It also forbade land sales to Jews in 95 percent of the territory of Palestine. The Arabs, nevertheless, rejected the proposal.

Jewish Immigrants to Palestine 7















































By contrast, throughout the Mandatory period, Arab immigration was unrestricted. In 1930, the Hope Simpson Commission, sent from London to investigate the 1929 Arab riots, said the British practice of ignoring the uncontrolled illegal Arab immigration from Egypt, Transjordan and Syria had the effect of displacing the prospective Jewish immigrants. 8

The British Governor of the Sinai from 1922-36 observed: "This illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria, and it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining states could not be kept from going in to share that misery." 9

The Peel Commission reported in 1937 that the "shortfall of land is . . . ​due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population." 10

Posted on Jan 11, 2013, 12:47:30 PM PST
Sixties Fan says:
Part 3


"The British changed their policy after World War II to allow the survivors of the Holocaust to settle in Palestine." top


The gates of Palestine remained closed for the duration of the war, stranding hundreds of thousands of Jews in Europe, many of whom became victims of Hitler's "Final Solution." After the war, the British refused to allow the survivors of the Nazi nightmare to find sanctuary in Palestine. On June 6, 1946, President Truman urged the British government to relieve the suffering of the Jews confined to displaced persons camps in Europe by immediately accepting 100,000 Jewish immigrants. Britain's Foreign Minister, Ernest Bevin, replied sarcastically that the United States wanted displaced Jews to immigrate to Palestine "because they did not want too many of them in New York." 11

Some Jews were able to reach Palestine, many smuggled in by way of dilapidated ships organized by members of the Jewish resistance organizations. Between August 1945 and the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948, 65 "illegal" immigrant ships, carrying 69,878 people, arrived from European shores. In August 1946, however, the British began to intern those they caught in camps in Cyprus. Approximately 50,000 people were detained in the camps, 28,000 of whom were still imprisoned when Israel declared independence. 12

Posted on Jan 11, 2013, 12:49:41 PM PST
Sixties Fan says:
Part 4


"As the Jewish population in Palestine grew, the plight of the Palestinian Arabs worsened." top


The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II, while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000. 13 In fact, the permanent Arab population increased 120 percent between 1922 and 1947. 14

This rapid growth of the Arab population was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states-constituting 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel-by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible. 15 The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945 and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943. 16

The Arab population increased the most in cities where large Jewish populations had created new economic opportunities. From 1922-1947, the non-Jewish population increased 290 percent in Haifa, 131 percent in Jerusalem and 158 percent in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42 percent in Nablus, 78 percent in Jenin and 37 percent in Bethlehem. 17

Posted on Jan 11, 2013, 12:50:42 PM PST
Sixties Fan says:
Part 5


"Jews stole Arab land." top


Despite the growth in their population, the Arabs continued to assert they were being displaced. From the beginning of World War I, however, part of Palestine's land was owned by absentee landlords who lived in Cairo, Damascus and Beirut. About 80 percent of the Palestinian Arabs were debt-ridden peasants, semi-nomads and Bedouins. 18

Jews actually went out of their way to avoid purchasing land in areas where Arabs might be displaced. They sought land that was largely uncultivated, swampy, cheap and, most important, without tenants. In 1920, Labor Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion expressed his concern about the Arab fellahin, whom he viewed as "the most important asset of the native population." Ben-Gurion said "under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them." He advocated helping liberate them from their oppressors. "Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement," Ben-Gurion added, "should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price." 19

It was only after the Jews had bought all of the available uncultivated land that they began to purchase cultivated land. Many Arabs were willing to sell because of the migration to coastal towns and because they needed money to invest in the citrus industry. 20

When John Hope Simpson arrived in Palestine in May 1930, he observed: "They [Jews] paid high prices for the land, and in addition they paid to certain of the occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay." 21

In 1931, Lewis French conducted a survey of landlessness for the British government and offered new plots to any Arabs who had been "dispossessed." British officials received more than 3,000 applications, of which 80 percent were ruled invalid by the Government's legal adviser because the applicants were not landless Arabs. This left only about 600 landless Arabs, 100 of whom accepted the Government land offer. 22

In April 1936, a new outbreak of Arab attacks on Jews was instigated by a Syrian guerrilla named Fawzi al--Qawukji, the commander of the Arab Liberation Army. By November, when the British finally sent a new commission headed by Lord Peel to investigate, 89 Jews had been killed and more than 300 wounded. 23

The Peel Commission's report found that Arab complaints about Jewish land acquisition were baseless. It pointed out that "much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased. . . . there was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land." 24 Moreover, the Commission found the shortage was "due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population." The report concluded that the presence of Jews in Palestine, along with the work of the British Administration, had resulted in higher wages, an improved standard of living and ample employment opportunities. 25

"It is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and by another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping" (emphasis in the original).

- Transjordan's King Abdullah 26

Even at the height of the Arab revolt in 1938, the British High Commissioner to Palestine believed the Arab landowners were complaining about sales to Jews to drive up prices for lands they wished to sell. Many Arab landowners had been so terrorized by Arab rebels they decided to leave Palestine and sell their property to the Jews. 27

The Jews were paying exorbitant prices to wealthy landowners for small tracts of arid land. "In 1944, Jews paid between $1,000 and $1,100 per acre in Palestine, mostly for arid or semiarid land; in the same year, rich black soil in Iowa was selling for about $110 per acre." 28

By 1947, Jewish holdings in Palestine amounted to about 463,000 acres. Approximately 45,000 of these acres were acquired from the Mandatory Government; 30,000 were bought from various churches and 387,500 were purchased from Arabs. Analyses of land purchases from 1880 to 1948 show that 73 percent of Jewish plots were purchased from large landowners, not poor fellahin. 29 Those who sold land included the mayors of Gaza, Jerusalem and Jaffa. As'ad el--Shuqeiri, a Muslim religious scholar and father of PLO chairman Ahmed Shuqeiri, took Jewish money for his land. Even King Abdullah leased land to the Jews. In fact, many leaders of the Arab nationalist movement, including members of the Muslim Supreme Council, sold land to Jews. 30

Posted on Jan 11, 2013, 12:51:28 PM PST
Sixties Fan says:
Part 6


"The British helped the Palestinians to live peacefully with the Jews." top


In 1921, Haj Amin el-Husseini first began to organize fedayeen ("one who sacrifices himself") to terrorize Jews. Haj Amin hoped to duplicate the success of Kemal Atatürk in Turkey by driving the Jews out of Palestine just as Kemal had driven the invading Greeks from his country. 31 Arab radicals were able to gain influence because the British Administration was unwilling to take effective action against them until they began a revolt against British rule.

Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen, former head of British military intelligence in Cairo, and later Chief Political Officer for Palestine and Syria, wrote in his diary that British officials "incline towards the exclusion of Zionism in Palestine." In fact, the British encouraged the Palestinians to attack the Jews. According to Meinertzhagen, Col. Waters-Taylor (financial adviser to the Military Administration in Palestine 1919-23) met with Haj Amin a few days before Easter, in 1920, and told him "he had a great opportunity at Easter to show the world . . . ̴3;that Zionism was unpopular not only with the Palestine Administration but in Whitehall and if disturbances of sufficient violence occurred in Jerusalem at Easter, both General Bols [Chief Administrator in Palestine, 1919-20] and General Allenby [Commander of Egyptian Force, 1917-19, then High Commissioner of Egypt] would advocate the abandonment of the Jewish Home. Waters-Taylor explained that freedom could only be attained through violence." 32

Haj Amin took the Colonel's advice and instigated a riot. The British withdrew their troops and the Jewish police from Jerusalem, allowing the Arab mob to attack Jews and loot their shops. Because of Haj Amin's overt role in instigating the pogrom, the British decided to arrest him. Haj Amin escaped, however, and was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment in absentia.

A year later, some British Arabists convinced High Commissioner Herbert Samuel to pardon Haj Amin and to appoint him Mufti. By contrast, Vladimir Jabotinsky and several of his followers, who had formed a Jewish defense organization during the unrest, were sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment. 33

Samuel met with Haj Amin on April 11, 1921, and was assured "that the influences of his family and himself would be devoted to tranquility." Three weeks later, riots in Jaffa and elsewhere left 43 Jews dead. 34

Haj Amin consolidated his power and took control of all Muslim religious funds in Palestine. He used his authority to gain control over the mosques, the schools and the courts. No Arab could reach an influential position without being loyal to the Mufti. His power was so absolute "no Muslim in Palestine could be born or die without being beholden to Haj Amin." 35 The Mufti's henchmen also ensured he would have no opposition by systematically killing Palestinians from rival clans who were discussing cooperation with the Jews.

As the spokesman for Palestinian Arabs, Haj Amin did not ask that Britain grant them independence. On the contrary, in a letter to Churchill in 1921, he demanded that Palestine be reunited with Syria and Transjordan. 36

The Arabs found rioting to be an effective political tool because of the lax British response toward violence against Jews. In handling each riot, the British prevented Jews from protecting themselves, but made little or no effort to prevent the Arabs from attacking them. After each outbreak, a British commission of inquiry would try to establish the cause of the violence. The conclusion was always the same: the Arabs were afraid of being displaced by Jews. To stop the rioting, the commissions would recommend that restrictions be placed on Jewish immigration. Thus, the Arabs came to recognize that they could always stop the influx of Jews by staging a riot.

This cycle began after a series of riots in May 1921. After failing to protect the Jewish community from Arab mobs, the British appointed the Haycraft Commission to investigate the cause of the violence. Although the panel concluded the Arabs had been the aggressors, it rationalized the cause of the attack: "The fundamental cause of the riots was a feeling among the Arabs of discontent with, and hostility to, the Jews, due to political and economic causes, and connected with Jewish immigration, and with their conception of Zionist policy. . . ." 37 One consequence of the violence was the institution of a temporary ban on Jewish immigration.

The Arab fear of being "displaced" or "dominated" was used as an excuse for their merciless attacks on peaceful Jewish settlers. Note, too, that these riots were not inspired by nationalistic fervor-nationalists would have rebelled against their British overlords-they were motivated by racial strife and misunderstanding.

In 1929, Arab provocateurs succeeded in convincing the masses that the Jews had designs on the Temple Mount (a tactic still used today). A Jewish religious observance at the Western Wall, which forms a part of the Temple Mount, served as a pretext for rioting by Arabs against Jews that spilled out of Jerusalem into other villages and towns, including Safed and Hebron.

Again, the British Administration made no effort to prevent the violence and, after it began, the British did nothing to protect the Jewish population. After six days of mayhem, the British finally brought troops in to quell the disturbance. By this time, virtually the entire Jewish population of Hebron had fled or been killed. In all, 133 Jews were killed and 399 wounded in the pogroms. 38

After the riots were over, the British ordered an investigation, which resulted in the Passfield White Paper. It said the "immigration, land purchase and settlement policies of the Zionist Organization were already, or were likely to become, prejudicial to Arab interests. It understood the Mandatory's obligation to the non-Jewish community to mean that Palestine's resources must be primarily reserved for the growing Arab economy. . . ." 39 This, of course, meant it was necessary to place restrictions not only on Jewish immigration but on land purchases.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the History forum


This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  38
Total posts:  5435
Initial post:  Jan 4, 2013
Latest post:  Nov 20, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers