What Brought The Arabs To Israel
This letter in The Wall Street Journal inspired me to do a little research:
No, Jews Were There Before Most PalestiniansGoing up against world-renowned Mideast scholar Bernard Lewis is daunting enough but especially so when your "facts" are so wrong (Letters, Dec. 10, responding to "On the Jewish Question," Nov. 26). Contrary to Steve Feldman, Jews did not "take land away from the Palestinians." They bought low-value land at a high price and reclaimed it. The resultant economic boom, moreover, drew a large Arab influx into what had been an underdeveloped and underpopulated landscape. Contrary to Gary Goldman, far from Arabs then "dominating that part of the world," the entire region had been under the Ottoman thumb for four centuries. In the Empire's breakup, Jews were allocated but a tiny sliver. Nor was Arab opposition to their presence monolithic. Some important figures, such as "Arab Revolt" leader Emir Faisal, welcomed it and looked forward to a positive, symbiotic relationship. Violently opposed, however, was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini. Sadly for both peoples, he and his ilk prevailed.
Richard D. Wilkins
Syracuse, N.Y.
The history is here. And here's an excerpt:
A Population BoomAs Hussein foresaw, the regeneration of Israel, and the growth of its population, came only after Jews returned in massive numbers. The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000. In fact, the permanent Arab population increased 120 percent between 1922 and 1947.
This rapid growth 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. 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.
The Arab population increased the most in cities with large Jewish populations that 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.
Jewish Land Purchases
Despite the growth in their population, the arabs continued to assert they were being displaced. The truth is from the beginning of World War I, part of Israel's Land was owned by absentee landlords who lived in Cairo, Damascus, and Beirut. About 80 percent of the Arabs were debt-ridden peasants, semi-nomads, and Bedouins.
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."
It was only after the Jews had bought all of this available Land that they began to purchase cultivated Land. Many Arabs were willing to sell because they were migrating to coastal towns and because they needed money to invest in the citrus industry.
When John Hope Simpson arrived in Israel in May 1930, he observed: "They [the 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."
In 1931, Lewis French conducted a survey of landlessness and eventually 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.
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.
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." 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.
In his memoirs, Transjordan's King Abdullah wrote:
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.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.
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 Israel, mostly for arid or semi-arid Land; in the same year, rich black soil in Iowa was selling for about $110 per acre."
I am astonished that no one has commented on such a hot-button issue yet, so what the heck, I'll take the plunge.
I'm of two minds on this particular posting.
On the one hand, it is very refreshing to have an alternative to the universally accepted script that Israel is totally wrong and the Palestinians totally put upon and oppressed by the rapacious and ruthless Israelis. Clearly the matter is not nearly as clear-cut as that.
On the other hand, the post disturbs me for a couple of reasons:
First, because it seems overly dismissive of the very real national tragedy that befell the Palestinians, as well as their continuing plight. True, the Israelis were not nearly as ruthless as is popularly believed on the left in the US (and believed universally everywhere else); and also true that the Palestinians (or at least, there leaders) did much to aggravate the situation to their own detriment; and finally, it is true that the other Arab states have been grossly hypocritical in talking about the Palestinian plight but doing nothing to fix it. Despite all this, the Palestinians have suffered, and continue to suffer, like hell.
But much more important - though more subtle - is my second concern: That this post is excessively defensive. Reading it one feels that the authors you quote are trying to rationalize and justify the State of Israel's existence.
This last bothers me a great deal, because I believe that the fact of Israel's existence is its' own justification. I believe that Israel's right to exist and to defend itself is self-evident even if we accept the most unfavorable interpretation of Israel's founding.
No matter what the circumstances of Israel's founding, I believe the following to be true:
1. Israel has a right to exist.
2. The world is better with Israel in it than it would be without it.
There is a paradox in this, given that I have already acknowledged the tragedy for the Palestinians that accompanied the founding of the State of Israel.
I resolve this paradox by accepting as reality that not every wrong has a remedy, and that even valid claims may lose their moral force with the passage of time.
Historic claims become stale with the passage time. The Palestinian claim against Israel is one such. Other examples of stale claims include claims by Armenians against the Turks emanating from the genocide of the First World War; claims by Mexico against the United States over the territories conquered from them in 1848; claims for "reparations" for the descendants of American Slaves (actually, this last not just stale, but satisfied - I consider the 360,000 dead US Army Navy servicemen lost to extinguish the vile practice payment in full); claims against Anglos for losses endured by Native Americans after the arrival of Europeans, etc. An example of a still-valid claim that is still valid would be the claim of Tibet against the Chinese occupation.
What makes for a historically stale claim versus a claim that is stale or extinguished? Well, obviously there are no hard and fast rules, and it is a subjective call. But I think there are a few guidelines that would help make the call: I would consider a previously valid historical claim stale if satisfaction of the claim would be logically absurd; if it would result in an injustice equal to or greater than the original injury; or if it would result in a net detriment to the public welfare generally.
Turning back the clock on Israel would certainly meet all these criteria, just as would turning back the clock on the United States to benefit Mexico or the Native Americans.
As you will know from my posts on the issue of spanking, I accept the fact that not every wrong has a remedy, and some wrongs are only made worse when a remedy is applied. Such is the case for the Palestinians so far as their loss of the territory now comprising the State of Israel is concerned.
This is not to say that the Palestinian problem is insoluble. In fact, the outlines of the inevitable ultimate solution are already clear - the only open question is how many people will die before that final solution is implemented. In my opinion the essential elements of this inevitable solution are:
- Two states side by side;
- NO right of return for Palestinians to Israel proper;
- Return of occupied territories by Israel to their original sovereigns;
- Recognition of Israel by Palestine and the bordering Arab States at the very least;
- An end to further Israeli settlement in the occupied territories
- Partial rollback of existing settlements.
Possible additional elements include a divided Jerusalem and monetary compensation to Palestinians in lieu of return of lost property in Israel proper.
Dennis at December 31, 2007 7:19 PM
Dennis --
The number of Arabs that were fled Israel in 1948 was, within 10%, the same as the number of Jews who were expelled from Arab lands and sought refuge in Israel that same year. If the Palestinians get compensation for their lost property, it would seem just that the Jews get the same.
In fact, let's simplify. Let us assume that Israel, since it bore the costs of resettling the Jews, is the proper holder of the Jews' property claims against the Arab governments. Let us also assume, as a rough-and-ready estimate, those claims are of the same value as the Palestinian claims against Israel. In that case, instead of the Arabs paying money to Israel and then Israel paying it to the Palestinians, let the Arab governments pay it directly to the Palestinians.
Then, of course, the Arabs and Palestinians can directly negotiate the compensation demanded by justice directly with each other.
Lunatic at January 3, 2008 1:19 AM
These are good points, but moot. The point of my post was that valid or not, Arab claims on Israel proper have expired - any validity they might have had has been extinguished.
I don't believe anyone - Jew or Arab - has a right of return at this point. Too much water under the bridge.
And as to the money - while I mentioned payment of money to Arab refugees in lieu of a right of return, I do not believe that Israel should pay that money out.
Yours,
Dennis
Dennis at January 8, 2008 3:12 PM
Leave a comment