Middle-East terrorism and the Palestine Mandate

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
34,587
Twitter
No
Why Madagascar? Odd that the Nazis mentioned it as well.

And you’ve just reminded me that my order for that Jenkins tome never arrived from Amazon.
Often wondered that myself. Possibly because it was seen as a low-population island with plenty of room for an influx, possibly because it was seen as a much safer solution than throwing a lit match into a known powder-keg in the Middle East (boy was that ever a thought considering what we've seen since).

I'm pretty sure a few swivel eyed rabbis could have been persuaded to discover references to a 'holy island of Judah' or something equally nonsensical to justify it all.

Which is pretty much what happened with the justification for sectioning off a large part of Palestine in any case.

Bear in mind the awful crap we ourselves have seen with some of the more endearingly swivel-eyed among the loyalist community in Northern Ireland, with a few half-hearted attempts to persuade the world that they are the 'lost tribe' of Israel.

Which makes just about as much sense as anything else to do with the efforts to historically contextualise such claims.
 


Malcolm Redfellow

Moderator
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
4,989
Website
redfellow.blogspot.com
Twitter
mredfellow
Last edited:
Last edited:
The British general Frederick Morgan caused a furore by claiming there was a zionist plot encompassing the Soviets and the UN to ferry Jews to Germany and on to Palestine.
The Morgan episode deserves fuller study.

Morgan was the 'only true begetter' of the whole D-Day operation. He and 'four enlisted men' began planning on 23 March 1943 — Eisenhower's appointment as SAC dates from the following January. Throughout the whole Normandy operation, through to the Fall of Berlin, Morgan was Eisenhower's ADC. By New Year 1946 he was chief of operations of UNRRA.

On 2 January 1946 a Press Conference at UNRRA headquarters in Frankfurt am Main was Morgan's opportunity to spell out a few problems:
  • he called for a fresh definition of 'displaced persons', because there were so many new and voluntary arrivals;
  • he asked for new thinking on what happened to the 300,000-500,000 DPs who would be left, apparently unsupported, in Germany by the end of 1946;
  • he pointed out that UNRRA's finances would terminate at the end of the year, and no successor organisation existed;
  • he bewailed the lack of co-operation between the four occupying powers.
So far, so good.

Morgan then took questions from the journalists. There is no verbatim record of what followed — so we are dependant on the newspapers' versions. This the AP effort:
Lieut. Gen. Sir Frederick E. Morgan, chief of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration operations in Germany, said at a news conference today that thousands of Polish Jews were coming into the United States zone from the east, and expressed belief they were doing so with a ‘well-organized, positive plan to get out of Europe.’
Sir Frederick added that he believed an unknown secret Jewish organization was behind the infiltration into Germany from the east.
‘I believe we are about to see a second exodus of Jews-this time from Europe,’ Sir Frederick added. He said he felt that the problem of Palestine was closely linked with the movement.
Sir Frederick told newsmen that he was not convinced by ‘all the talk about pogroms within Poland.’
He said that Jews arriving in Berlin in trainloads from Lodz and other Polish centers were ‘well dressed, well fed, rosy-cheeked and have plenty of money.’
‘They certainly do not look like persecuted people,’ Sir Frederick said. ‘I believe they have got a plan, a positive plan, to get out of Europe.’
Sir Frederick said that he did not believe that the mass movement of Jews into Germany ‘had the connivance of the Polish Government or any other Eastern power.’

The US media went ape. Walter Winchell, the leading radio commentator of the day, demanded Morgan be fired, repudiated by Britain and stripped of his uniform 'before decent Americans can again commiserate with England'. The New York Times editorialised 'it was an insult to six million tortured dead'. The president of the American Jewish Congress compared Morgan to the Elders of Zion. Chaim Weizmann, president of the World Zionist Organisation, saw it as 'palpably anti-Semitic'. The entertainer, Eddie Cantor, had an advert in the New York Times 'I thought Hitler was DEAD'.

Clearly Morgan had to go, but he refused to resign:
I see no reason why I should resign. It was unfortunate that in some quarters what I said was distorted. My one and only objective in saying what I did was to do what I could to bring to the attention of the competent authorities the urgent necessity for providing a positive and constructive solution to the displaced persons problem as a whole.
It is a thousand pities that the Jewish angle of the problem has been so unduly highlighted. It is only one fraction of a very much larger whole, which I hope will not tend to obscure the broader picture. The fact remains that a solution of the overall displaced persons problem must be found-and quickly.
It took a fortnight to winkle Morgan out — by which time shrewder minds were taking a cooler look. Morgan left the army, but was later retreaded as head of the UK Atomic Energy Authority.

The other end of the equation was the 1939 White Paper on Palestine. This endorsed just 75,000 immigration certificates. 'Illegal' immigration, those without visas, were arriving into Palestine at a rate of 1,500 a month and counted against that 75,000 ceiling.

Which leaves two questions about Morgan's statement:
  • was there anti-semitism rampant in Poland, generating the 'push-factor'? Behind that, a bit further, were the Soviets using Jewish refugees into the Western Zones of occupation as a political device? (And if not, where do Stalinist bears defecate?)
  • was there a 'secret' Jewish operation (or rather, start with the official CKZP and start counting its adjuncts) machinating the influx into the Western Zones?
 

Malcolm Redfellow

Moderator
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
4,989
Website
redfellow.blogspot.com
Twitter
mredfellow
Last edited:
Last edited:
Taking the late and fruity Oscar as my model:
As soon as you have one, you seem to want to throw it away. It is silly of you, for there is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talkedabout.
I am taking the view there is something worse than being 'liked' here. It involves not being able to chose by whom one is 'liked'.
 

former wesleyan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
25,914
Churchill and Smuts 1943,
EAZGUDBX4AAFcSH.png


" Arabs have done very little for the Allied cause in this war, while profiting immensely from our efforts in the last war "
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,704
Churchill and Smuts 1943,
View attachment 19262

" Arabs have done very little for the Allied cause in this war, while profiting immensely from our efforts in the last war "
The whole letter is poignant, particularly in consideration of the repeated attempted appeasements of the Arabs going right back to 1922 in particular, when they handed 75% of the mandate territory earmarked for the Jews, against the terms of the mandate, over to the Arabs.

Why? Because the mufti was inciting violence and massacres against Jews (the very first organised defense was Irgun 15 years later, after yet more continual attacks and massacres even after that massive appeasement made in 1922/3.).

And what he says about "Hitler's triumph in the fundamental item of his satanic creed". - This is exactly what it seems to me is at issue in our times. This is the underlying spirit that I hear in all these people attacking Israel, willfully blind to the harm to Jews that the demonic crusade they are adding their voice to can only perpetuate.

What is wrong with this country that it stands by while "we leave Jewish claims at the mercy of their undeserving opponents". He is right. It would be fatal. We cannot allow it to continue, but however I fear it will.
 

Malcolm Redfellow

Moderator
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
4,989
Website
redfellow.blogspot.com
Twitter
mredfellow
former wesleyan (post #90) has a goodie there. It has the feel of Smuts reprising his greatest hits. [Memo: must try a whack-job on Smuts some time.]

This from David Fromkin, page 281-2:

“General Smuts had expressed very decided views as to the strategical importance of Palestine to the British Empire," Lloyd George later wrote, and became immediately involved with the issue. Perhaps because it had been decided that the political links of the empire were not to be tightened, Smuts and Amery moved at the same time to cement the geographical links of the entities comprising the British system; and both men concentrated on the importance of Palestine. If broadly defined, and in conjunction with Mesopotamia, Palestine gave Britain the land road from Egypt to India and brought together the empires of Africa and Asia. The capture of German East Africa by Botha and Smuts had already created a continuous stretch of British-controlled territories between, on the one hand, Cape Town, the Atlantic Ocean port at the southern tip of Africa, and, on the other, Suez, which bridged the Mediterranean and the Red Sea at the continent's northeastern tip. With the addition of Palestine and Mesopotamia, the Cape Town to Suez stretch could be linked up with the stretch of territory that ran through British-controlled Persia and the Indian Empire to Burma, Malaya, and the two great Dominions in the Pacific — Australia and New Zealand. As of 1917, Palestine was the key missing link that could join together the parts of the British Empire so that they would form a continuous chain from the Atlantic to the middle of the Pacific.
The Prime Minister, of course, saw it the same way. As he wrote later, “For the British Empire, the fight with Turkey had a special importance of its own [...] The Turkish Empire lay right across the track by land or water to our great possessions in the East — India, Burma, Malaya, Borneo, Hong Kong, and the Dominions of Australia and New Zealand.”

Those quotations are in Lloyd George’s War Memoirs, volume 4 (1917).

roc_'s dig at Mohammed Amin al-Husseini [post #91] is, if anything, more immediately pertinent. Were the thread to continue, there's another target to smack at. Lest we forget, he was the 'Grand Mufti' because the British had invented that title. Another example of 'Be careful what you wish for: you may get it.'
 

parentheses

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
14,859
The Morgan episode deserves fuller study.

Morgan was the 'only true begetter' of the whole D-Day operation. He and 'four enlisted men' began planning on 23 March 1943 — Eisenhower's appointment as SAC dates from the following January. Throughout the whole Normandy operation, through to the Fall of Berlin, Morgan was Eisenhower's ADC. By New Year 1946 he was chief of operations of UNRRA.

On 2 January 1946 a Press Conference at UNRRA headquarters in Frankfurt am Main was Morgan's opportunity to spell out a few problems:
  • he called for a fresh definition of 'displaced persons', because there were so many new and voluntary arrivals;
  • he asked for new thinking on what happened to the 300,000-500,000 DPs who would be left, apparently unsupported, in Germany by the end of 1946;
  • he pointed out that UNRRA's finances would terminate at the end of the year, and no successor organisation existed;
  • he bewailed the lack of co-operation between the four occupying powers.
So far, so good.

Morgan then took questions from the journalists. There is no verbatim record of what followed — so we are dependant on the newspapers' versions. This the AP effort:
Lieut. Gen. Sir Frederick E. Morgan, chief of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration operations in Germany, said at a news conference today that thousands of Polish Jews were coming into the United States zone from the east, and expressed belief they were doing so with a ‘well-organized, positive plan to get out of Europe.’
Sir Frederick added that he believed an unknown secret Jewish organization was behind the infiltration into Germany from the east.
‘I believe we are about to see a second exodus of Jews-this time from Europe,’ Sir Frederick added. He said he felt that the problem of Palestine was closely linked with the movement.
Sir Frederick told newsmen that he was not convinced by ‘all the talk about pogroms within Poland.’
He said that Jews arriving in Berlin in trainloads from Lodz and other Polish centers were ‘well dressed, well fed, rosy-cheeked and have plenty of money.’
‘They certainly do not look like persecuted people,’ Sir Frederick said. ‘I believe they have got a plan, a positive plan, to get out of Europe.’
Sir Frederick said that he did not believe that the mass movement of Jews into Germany ‘had the connivance of the Polish Government or any other Eastern power.’

The US media went ape. Walter Winchell, the leading radio commentator of the day, demanded Morgan be fired, repudiated by Britain and stripped of his uniform 'before decent Americans can again commiserate with England'. The New York Times editorialised 'it was an insult to six million tortured dead'. The president of the American Jewish Congress compared Morgan to the Elders of Zion. Chaim Weizmann, president of the World Zionist Organisation, saw it as 'palpably anti-Semitic'. The entertainer, Eddie Cantor, had an advert in the New York Times 'I thought Hitler was DEAD'.

Clearly Morgan had to go, but he refused to resign:
I see no reason why I should resign. It was unfortunate that in some quarters what I said was distorted. My one and only objective in saying what I did was to do what I could to bring to the attention of the competent authorities the urgent necessity for providing a positive and constructive solution to the displaced persons problem as a whole.
It is a thousand pities that the Jewish angle of the problem has been so unduly highlighted. It is only one fraction of a very much larger whole, which I hope will not tend to obscure the broader picture. The fact remains that a solution of the overall displaced persons problem must be found-and quickly.
It took a fortnight to winkle Morgan out — by which time shrewder minds were taking a cooler look. Morgan left the army, but was later retreaded as head of the UK Atomic Energy Authority.

The other end of the equation was the 1939 White Paper on Palestine. This endorsed just 75,000 immigration certificates. 'Illegal' immigration, those without visas, were arriving into Palestine at a rate of 1,500 a month and counted against that 75,000 ceiling.

Which leaves two questions about Morgan's statement:
  • was there anti-semitism rampant in Poland, generating the 'push-factor'? Behind that, a bit further, were the Soviets using Jewish refugees into the Western Zones of occupation as a political device? (And if not, where do Stalinist bears defecate?)
  • was there a 'secret' Jewish operation (or rather, start with the official CKZP and start counting its adjuncts) machinating the influx into the Western Zones?
Actually it seems Morgan was reinstated in late January following meetings with Herbert Lehman, the head of UNRRA.

However, by August he was permanently dismissed by the new head of UNRRA, Fiorello la Guardia.

 

Malcolm Redfellow

Moderator
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
4,989
Website
redfellow.blogspot.com
Twitter
mredfellow
Actually it seems Morgan was reinstated in late January following meetings with Herbert Lehman, the head of UNRRA.

However, by August he was permanently dismissed by the new head of UNRRA, Fiorello la Guardia.
Forgive my conflation. (I should have referred to —e.g.— the DNB. Sadly, as an economy I have lost my subscription.)

To move on (and this I hadn't appreciated) there is another dimension. This from Giles MacDonogh, After the Reich (one of the more distressing reads, I reckon), page 330 in my copy:
The Jewish survivors who drifted towards Germany in the hope of reaching the West or Palestine were put back behind barbed wire in DP camps. Many children were born in captivity. For the Jewish survivors there was a quandary: once they had achieved a sense of humanity once again and could begin to think about the basics of food and clothing, they needed to decide what their future would be, and where. Could they go back to their old homes in Poland or Hungary? These countries had been more or less cleared of Jews. There were no more friends and relations to welcome them, and wherever they went they would be reminded of the scale of their tragedy. And there was the nasty thought of the gentile neighbour, who might look them up and down, surveying them with a mocking smile that said ‘What? Still alive?’
These Jews, who were known as the she’erit Hapletah or ‘rescued remainder’, kept flooding into Germany. Partly this was a result of renewed antisemitic violence in the new Poland, where between 1,500 and 2,000 Jews were killed in pogroms in Kielce and elsewhere in 1945. Occupied Germany was considered the safest place to be. Some 270,000 Jews went to Germany after the end of the war and sought refuge in DP camps. The period before they were to find new homes in Palestine and elsewhere has been called the ‘grim aftermath of the Holocaust’.
The British were suspicious about the influx of Jews into Germany. They thought, possibly correctly, that they were intending to use Germany as a springboard to Palestine. The head of displaced-persons operations for UNRRA in Germany, Lieutenant-General Sir Frederick Morgan, thought a secret organisation was behind the arrival of so many ‘well-dressed, well-fed, rosy-cheeked’ Jews who appeared to have ‘plenty of money’. The British began to bar entrance to the DP camps to new arrivals and prevent Jews from going south via Austria. They also introduced a compulsory labour law for the inhabitants of the camps.
At their height there were 184 Jewish camps scattered around Germany: there were eleven in the French Zone, twenty-two in the British and 151 in the American.
[...]​
The preponderance of Jewish DP camps in the American Zone was no accident: Jews wanted to reach America and found British policy on Palestine unsympathetic. Britain was the principal enemy of the Jews before 1949. From January to April 1946 admissions to American camps ran at around 3,000 a day, with some 2,000 entering camps in the American Zone in Austria. By April there were 3,000 Jews in Berlin, 1,600 in the French Zone, 15,600 in the British and 54,000 in the American. There were six times as many Jews in American-occupied Austria as in the British Zone. By the end of the year there were 204,000 Jews in the parts of Germany and Austria controlled by the Western Allies, 90 per cent of them in the American Zones. It was not always the case, however, that the Americans were more considerate towards the Jews than the British. General Patton expressed the view that they were ‘baser than animals’.
The Americans were spending $500,000,000 a year on the camps. There was some question as to whom the Jews belonged. They were hardly likely to want to be Germans, and most of the eastern states disowned them too. They were effectively stateless. As numbers continued to swell, the Americans let in a trickle to the US by slightly loosening their quota in December 1945. The British Dominions, which had been excessively stingy in extending hospitality in 1938, continued to sport the oak. Jews who tried to run the blockade into Palestine were famously intercepted and interned in DP camps on Cyprus. When the Jewish state was established in May 1948 they flooded across the water.
That, by the way, is Morgan's sole appearance in MacDonough. UNRRA gets two mentions: one over Yugoslavia opposing food aid to Austria, the other in connection with Montgomery's starvation policy in Hamburg.
 

Malcolm Redfellow

Moderator
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
4,989
Website
redfellow.blogspot.com
Twitter
mredfellow
Last edited:
Last edited:
I wonder when Britain was a friend of Jews? :cool:
Sometime we need to unscramble precisely what Cromwell did in 1655-6. He formed a sub-committee of the Council of State; he put it to a conference of constituency representatives; he had a titanic outburst at that conference's final meeting (18 December 1655) ... and then it all went quiet.

Cromwell's intent was to have Sephardic Jews in London (not, as others proposed, developing communities way out in the sticks) so that the City could develop as a rival to Amsterdam. Land was acquired for a Jews' burial ground in Mile End (it's still there, on the premises of Queen Mary College). Solomon Domido eventually became the first Jew admitted to the Royal Exchange (the required oath on the New Testament was casually ignored) — by that stage, the City-men had decided these guys were A-OK.

By 1663 the Jewish congregation had their synagogue in Creechurch Lane, near Aldgate — and when the grander Bevis Marks opened (1701) the benches from Creechurch Lane were frugally recycled. That makes Bevis Marks the longest-continually-functioning synagogue in western Europe.

In 1675 what is now called 'Cromwell House' on The Bank in Highgate was acquired by Alvaro da Costa (who came in the train of Catherine of Braganza). This is said to be the first property owned by Jews in England since 1296: it may have contained an informal synagogue and ritual bath (at least that's what we are told on those guided tours of the area).

All of which should be totally ignored for this thread, because it is criminally off-topic.
 

Golah veNekhar

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
3,697
The whole letter is poignant, particularly in consideration of the repeated attempted appeasements of the Arabs going right back to 1922 in particular, when they handed 75% of the mandate territory earmarked for the Jews, against the terms of the mandate, over to the Arabs.

Why? Because the mufti was inciting violence and massacres against Jews (the very first organised defense was Irgun 15 years later, after yet more continual attacks and massacres even after that massive appeasement made in 1922/3.).

What is wrong with this country that it stands by while "we leave Jewish claims at the mercy of their undeserving opponents". He is right. It would be fatal. We cannot allow it to continue, but however I fear it will.


This is an interesting post.

The colonial regime established by the UK had no right to ear mark any of it for Jews. However you are admitting that the Jewish immigration was not interested from day one outside of a small few in actually living together with the indigenous population but wanted them pushed. You admit this in other parts of the post as well.

Why the Zionist focus on Amin al-Husseini? This is something I have never been fully able to understand. Why not the focus on Izz ad-Din al-Qassam who actually historically was more important and did actually council armed struggle.

People who have lived thousands of year on their land are undeserving in their right to either return to it or to remain it? Because people calling themselves Jews claim that land?
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,704
... This is an interesting post.

The colonial regime established by the UK had no right to ear mark any of it for Jews. ...
They didn't.

It was the entire international community that gathered at the 1920 San Remo peace conference that did, and it was they that discussed, voted on and set out the terms of the Mandate for Palestine, that was given to the care of the British to carry out said terms of the mandate.

The international community granted rights to Jews that were set out in the terms of the mandate (along with Arab rights), recognising the Jews' pre-existing rights in Palestine, and their right to reconstitute their national home in Palestine.

A little background on this in the short video below.

 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,704
People who have lived thousands of year on their land are undeserving in their right to either return to it or to remain it?
Zionism always in the major part of it stated its intent of living in peace and brotherhood with their Arab neighbours.

Remember the Palestine Mandate also included the present area of Jordan.

There was plenty of room until the appeasement of 1922, when the British granted 76% of the area of Palestine to the Arabs and closed it off to any further Jewish immigration, against the terms of the mandate.

Not to mention how the Arabs poured into the region of present day Israel, illegally, both for the opportunities the Jews created, and in answer to calls by the Mufti to come.
 

Golah veNekhar

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
3,697
Zionism always in the major part of it stated its intent of living in peace and brotherhood with their Arab neighbours.
No it did not and you know it- you know the difference between the propaganda and the actual reality from the first Aliyah. The idea of constituting a Jewish national state in an area with a massive non-Jewish population only ever meant one thing did it not? The Zionist colonial project continues it's ethnic cleansing within the Green Line as well as in Jerusalem and the West Bank while what we have going on in Gaza is incremental genocide. The idea that it was out to live in peace and brotherhood with the indigenous population is daft.

You though are opposed to the concept of the Zionist state becoming a state of all it's citizens- you don't have a problem with indigenous Palestinian citizens of the state being constantly refused building permits no mind being in favour of state action to deal with their massive housing crisis. You would prefer if they did not exist. Is this an example of wanting to live in "peace and brotherhood"?

There is a difference between the propaganda statements and the reality of Zionist colonialism which is very far from any ideas of "Peace and Brotherhood" with "Arabs", and for the most part has always been.

Or have you come around to supporting a bi-national state with the right of return?
 

Golah veNekhar

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
3,697
Not to mention how the Arabs poured into the region of present day Israel, illegally, both for the opportunities the Jews created, and in answer to calls by the Mufti to come.
This is a Zionist lie- Jews who employed indigenous Palestinians in British Mandate Palestine very often ended up with Zionist bullets in them. Ever since the first Aliyah Zionist colonialism was pushing out indigenous Palestinians from Palestine. In fact it was this what led Izz ad-Din al-Qassam to start to organize the indigenous masses forced from the land into cities by the Zionist and the people still on the land. 10 per cent of the indigenous Palestinians males died in the revolt of 1936- think about that. Of course the Mufti- the importance of whom the Zionists wildly exaggerated never made any such call.
 

Malcolm Redfellow

Moderator
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
4,989
Website
redfellow.blogspot.com
Twitter
mredfellow
This is a Zionist lie- Jews who employed indigenous Palestinians in British Mandate Palestine very often ended up with Zionist bullets in them. Ever since the first Aliyah Zionist colonialism was pushing out indigenous Palestinians from Palestine. In fact it was this what led Izz ad-Din al-Qassam to start to organize the indigenous masses forced from the land into cities by the Zionist and the people still on the land. 10 per cent of the indigenous Palestinians males died in the revolt of 1936- think about that. Of course the Mufti- the importance of whom the Zionists wildly exaggerated never made any such call.
Not all of that comes even reasonably close to actuality. So begin at the beginning:
  • There seems to be no formal 'land ownership' before the Turkish Land Registry Law (1858): tradition was all that mattered — which meant blood-feuds, and incursions by Bedouin war-lords such as Ben Sakk'r who could muster 1,000 cavalry ... whenever a raid or war in on the move. The fellahin were expelled and corn-land reduced to pasturage. Where the pastures tended by fellahin persisted, the land was undeveloped, and pestilent. Tax and moneylending ensured the peasant was debt-ridden. It was, in effect, a form of primitive feudalism: the absentee landowners were in Beirut, Damascus and Cairo. The Jezreel Valley was owned by just two: in the east, the Turkish sultan, in the west by the banker Sursuq the Greek.
  • Jerusalem was —uniquely — a Jewish city. Of the 60,000 population in 1910, two-thirds were Jewish.
  • Early Jewish land purchases were by collectives, and on the cheap. Over half-a-century, down to 1930, the Palestine Land Development Company, the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association, and the Jewish National Fund had together acquired over 1.2 million dunhams of land — over 91% by purchase from private owners. [Source: Niedermaier].
  • That is confirmed by Granott, The Land System in Palestine(1952):
    • The total area of land in Jewish possession at the end of June 1947 amounted to 1,850,000 dunams, of this 181,100 dunams had been obtained through concessions from the Palestinian Government, and about 120,000 dunams had been acquired from Churches, from foreign companies, from the Government otherwise than by concessions, and so forth. It was estimated that 1,000,000 dunams and more, or 57 per cent, had been acquired from large Arab landowners, and if to this we add the lands acquired from the Government, Churches, and foreign companies, the percentage will amount to seventy-three. From the fellaheen there had been purchased about 500,000 dunams, or 27 per cent, of the total acquired. The result of Jewish land acquisitions, at least to a considerable part, was that properties which had been in the hands of large and medium owners were converted into holding of small peasants.
  • By 1944 Jews were buying desert land for more than ten times the asking price for 'black land' in the US Mid-West.
Anyone looking to persist with the exchange? Because I have more, a lot more ...
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,704
... Early Jewish land purchases were by collectives, and on the cheap. ...
My understanding was that they paid top dollar for all land acquired. I seem to recall even the Mufti, the first leader of the Palestinian Arabs, admitting as much in his testimony at the Peel commission of 1937 (in his arguments for reverting the region to Turkish rule, even as he admitted the felaheen had lower taxes, more schools, and so on than they ever had under the Ottomans). - Peel Commission Full Report (1937) - English
 

james toney

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
18,949
I wonder when Britain was a friend of Jews? :cool:
Don't be so daft and anti semitic font/ochinlor...sometimes when you want to unravel the truth's of war crimes,the memory might choose to forget it's own fascism and hypocrisy.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom