Zionists stole Palestinian land: That’s the mantra both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas teach their children and propagate in their media. This claim has vast importance, as Palestinian Media Watch explains: “Presenting the creation of the [Israeli] state as an act of theft and its continued existence as a historical injustice serves as the basis for the PA’s non-recognition of Israel’s right to exist.” The accusation of theft also undermines Israel’s position internationally.
But is this accusation true?
Advertisement
No, it is not. Ironically, the building of Israel represents almost the most peaceable in-migration and state creation in history. Understanding why requires seeing Zionism in context. Simply put, conquest is the historical norm. Governments everywhere have been established through invasion and nearly all states came into being at someone else’s expense. No one is permanently in charge; everyone’s roots trace back to somewhere else.
Germanic tribes, Central Asian hordes, Russian tsars, and Spanish and Portuguese conquistadors remade the map. Modern Greeks have only a tenuous connection to the Greeks of antiquity. Who can count the number of times Belgium was overrun? The United States came into existence after the defeat of Native Americans. Kings marauded in Africa, Aryans invaded India. In Japan, Yamato-speakers eliminated all but tiny groups such as the Ainu.
The Middle East, due to its centrality and geography, has experienced more than its share of invasions, including the Greek, Roman, Arabian, Crusader, Seljuk, Timurid, Mongolian, and modern European. Within the region, dynastic froth caused the same territory — Egypt for example — to be conquered and re-conquered.
The land that now makes up Israel was no exception. In Jerusalem Besieged: From Ancient Canaan to Modern Israel, Eric H. Cline writes of Jerusalem: “No other city has been more bitterly fought over throughout its history.” He backs up that claim, counting “at least 118 separate conflicts in and for Jerusalem during the past four millennia.” He calculates Jerusalem to have been destroyed completely at least twice, besieged 23 times, captured 44 times, and attacked 52 times. The PA fantasizes that today’s Palestinians are descended from a tribe of ancient Canaan, the Jebusites; in fact, they are overwhelmingly the offspring of invaders and immigrants seeking economic opportunities.
Against this tableau of unceasing conquest, violence, and overthrow, Zionist efforts to build a presence in the Holy Land until 1948 stand out as astonishingly mild, mercantile rather than military. Two great empires, the Ottomans and the British, ruled Eretz Yisrael. In contrast, Zionists lacked military power. They could not possibly achieve statehood through conquest.
Instead, they purchased land. Acquiring property dunam by dunam, farm by farm, house by house, lay at the heart of the Zionist enterprise until 1948. The Jewish National Fund, founded in 1901 to buy land in Palestine “to assist in the foundation of a new community of free Jews engaged in active and peaceable industry,” was the key institution — and not the Haganah, the clandestine defense organization founded in 1920.
Zionists also focused on the rehabilitation of what was barren and considered unusable. They not only made the desert bloom, but drained swamps, cleared water channels, reclaimed wasteland, forested bare hills, cleared rocks, and removed salt from the soil. Jewish reclamation and sanitation work precipitously reduced the number of disease-related deaths.
Only when the British Mandate of Palestine gave up power in 1948, followed immediately by an all-out attempt by Arab states to crush and expel the Zionists, did the latter take up the sword in self-defense and go on to win land through military conquest. Even then, as the historian Efraim Karsh demonstrates in Palestine Betrayed, most Arabs fled their lands; exceedingly few were forced off.
This history contradicts the Palestinian account that “Zionist gangs stole Palestine and expelled its people” which led to a catastrophe “unprecedented in history” (according to a PA twelfth-grade textbook) or that Zionists “plundered the Palestinian land and national interests, and established their state upon the ruins of the Palestinian Arab people” (writes a columnist in the PA’s daily). International organizations, newspaper editorials, and faculty petitions reiterate this falsehood worldwide.
Israelis should hold their heads high and point out that the building of their country was based on the least violent and most civilized movement of any people in history. Gangs did not steal Palestine. Merchants purchased Israel.
1. Since when does "buying land" give you the right to set up your own country? (Should I just declare my back-yard a republic this afternoon?)
2. Of course "arabs fled their lands" -there was a war going on! Did you expect them just to sit there and dodge the occasional bullet?
3. The lesson on ancient history is a nice touch but doesn't legitimze whats going on today. I don't have a claim on Saxony just because my ancestors were displaced from there in the early middle ages.
While usually "of the right" in my world view this type of one-eyed defence of Israel's policies in reference to the west bank and gaza is really annoying.
Hamas is an Israeli creation -don't forget that. Things are gonna get worse for Israel (and it's protectors i.e us) if the far right of Israeli politics is not made to see reason.
1. Pipes was not talking about the creation of Israel, he was talking about the migration to Israel. It is clear in his text. "Against this tableau of unceasing conquest, violence, and overthrow, Zionist efforts to build a presence in the Holy Land until 1948 stand out as astonishingly mild, mercantile rather than military." Notice, he does not say build a nation he says build a presence. How much clearer can that be? What gave Israel a mandate to exist was the UN's partition plan for the former British mandate. It was the Arab's who declined to agree to the partition of the area, which interestingly would have included Jerusalem becoming an international city governed by the UN.
2. The Arabs left their homes because they were told to do so by the same Arab governments that started the war.
3. I happen to agree with this point.
What would you consider "seeing reason" to be? What would you have Israel to agree with and how do you think that would change the Arab's view of that country?
1. American ability to "project power" in the rest of the world will decline in the next 10-15 years.
2. Iran (despite our best efforts) will be nuclear armed in the next 10-15 years.
3. The palestinian population in Gaza (and what they have left in the west bank) will only increase dramatically in the forseeable future.
4. The new govenments in Egypt (possibly Jordan) amongst others will be less inclined to listen to the US or Israel for that matter and may, in fact, be openly hostile.
Israel, should, in my opinion, seek the moderates amongst the Palestinians (what remains of them) and built lasting peace.
The Israeli settler movement "enables" Hamas. While difficult now, this task will only get more difficult in the future for the reasons onlined above.
I agree on point 1,although the devil will be in the details.
On point 2 I would have a narrower time frame.
Point 3 is interesting in a demographics sense. Arab fertility in general, and West Bank and Gaza fertility in particular, is decling while Israeli fertility is rising. I am not sure when these paths will cross but I do not think that it is necessarily true that there is a demographic time bomb awaiting Israel.
Point 4 is probably dead on. I see another war or series of wars coming. However, I am not sure that there is anything Israel can do to avoid them. To many Arabs the question of Israel is not what its borders will be but whether it will exist at all. Concessions on the margin can do nothing about that.
James,
Did I say anywhere that American's would die in the upcoming wars? I do not remember any American troops fighting in previous Arab-Israeli wars.
There is no Palestine so there is no growth rate for Palestine. If you are talking about the West Bank the population growth rate was 2.097% in 2011 according to CIA Factbook. The birthrate was 24.56/1000, there was zero net migration. I could not find how the numbers breakdown for Israeli's on the West Bank as compared to Arabs.
Israel had a polulation growth rate of 1.584%, a birth rate of 19.84/1000, and a net migration of 2.08/1000. It is unlikely that the West Bank Arabs will bury Israel in a demographic tidal wave.
But you did not answer my most important question: What would you have Israel do? And why do you think doing so would bring it long term peace?
In 1967 the US remained on the sidelines in deference to their delicate position with regards to Russian influence over the Arab states. History shows that Israel very effectively dealt with the agressors.
In this century, with a nuclear armed Iran, a large Egyptian military trained (in no small part) in the US, the outcome is not nearly so certain.
If you believe that the USA is not the "fail-safe" behind the state of Israel, then you don't fully comprehend the depth of our involvement in this region.
That being said, I beleive that western enthusiasm for Israeli security is waneing (especially in Europe). This is a position that leaves Israel (and the USA) increasingly isolated in the world.
Demographic trends in Europe would suggest that this position is only going to get worse with time and this should concern both US and Israeli leaders.
James,
The US also stayed on the sidelines in '73, although that can always be attributed to the Cold War.
Israel has not had any support from the Europeans since '67, it is unlikely that the lack of same will cause it any problems. Or are you assuming actual active European intervention?
The Iranian bomb is extremely problematic but I do not see how that would dictate American troops on the ground in Israel. Do you think having troops stationed in Israel would deter the Iranians?
1) The Jews were buying land in territories which were administered by other governments. In 1948, the British Government surrendered its claim to the land for the explicit purpose of giving the Jews and the Arabs "their own land."
Either you don't understand the history or you're dissembling.
2) No, not "of course". First, your facile explanation would also apply to the Jews - they too would be "in a war zone" ... why didn't they leave? Second, the Arabs left the "Jewish zone" because they didn't want to be collateral damage when the massed Arab armies swept through and exterminated the Jews. Indeed, they were encouraged to "get out of the way" by their fellow Arabs. It was a nice, neat little plan - "get out of the way and then, after we wipe out the Jews, you can come back, claim what's yours - - - and get some of what was the Jews' too." Problem was - - - the Arab armies lost.
3) I actually agree - somewhat - with your third point. I don't think it necessary to go back further than 1948 to justify Israel's claim to its land. Maps change after military defeats; perhaps the Arabs should stop attacking ....
As to your final point .... blaming the "far right" for Israel's problems - - - seriously .... the Palestinians & Arabs preach and indoctrinate extermination of the Jewish state and it's the ISRAELIS who have to be "made to see reason"?
Faced with an implacable enemy, Israel's restraint is remarkable.
James Hart is more than a little bit disingenuous while claiming that the author is being disengenuous.
1) Nobody claimed that buying land gave someone the right to set up a state. It gave them the right to be there. Then the British, because they won in WWI and the Ottoman's lost, gained control of that land, which did give them the right to set up a state there.
2) James ignores the fact that the war that was going on was started entirely by the Arabs, and was designed to kill all the Jews.
James Hart: You are right. What Daniel Pipes said about the Jews buying land in Palestine doesn't give the Jews political or national rights to set up their own country. But the Jews got those political rights lawfully in 1920, granted by the WWI Allies at San Remo. They were granted under Article 22 of the League of Nations covenant that provided for a trust or guardianship by a trustee that turned out to be England, although the US had been considered too. Under the trust, the Jews would not be allowed to exercise the political rights granted until they gained a majority of the population from Jews in the Diaspora flocking back to Palestine. See: Memorandum of September 19, 1917 of Arnold Toynbee and James Namier of the British Foreign Office that said the argument that the grant of exclusive political rights to the Jews was antidemocratic was imaginary as applied to the British Mandate, because the rights would be granted IN TRUST. Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant had been drafted by the Council of Ten just two months before, so Toynbee was able to say that while the antidemocratic argument was a good one, it was "imagainary" as applied to the existing grant of collective political rights. After the Jews had attained a population majority in the whole country, they could set up a state on a modern European model. Likely he was referring to the concept of the nation-state in Europe after the Treaty of Westphalia. See: Charles Hill, Trial of a Thousand Years: World Order and Islamism (HOOVER INST PRESS PUBLICATION) The non-Jews existing rights to individual political rights such as the right to an equal vote in government and their property rights were expressly saved by the saving of their "civil" rights after the Jews did ultimately exercise sovereignty. Also saved were the religious rights of the non-Jews. Article 22 envisioned a trust and a guardianship; both entailed fiduciary relationships. But England did not act as a fiduciary should when it later severed transJordan, the land east of the Jordan from the grant to the Jews gave it to a foreign power, and also prohibited the Jews from settling there. Both of these violated the express terms of the mandate. So did its actions in the north of Palestine when it failed to give to the Jews land in Palestine from Dan to Beersheba as required by the Franco-British Boundary Commission. It eliminated the Golan Heights and Lebanon south of the Litani River, and also transJordan to solve its own political problems - not the proper acts of a fiduciary.
The Victimhood Narrative or canon of the invented "Palestinian People" includes the canard that the Jews were engaged in stealing Arab land, when all the time the Arabs local to Palestine, and other Arabs in surrounding countries were engaged in extortion by violence and threats of violence of the lawful exclusive collective political or national rights to Palestine granted in 1920 by the WWI Allies, adopting the British Policy of the Balfour Declaration.
It would be nice to see this point pushed further, Daniel. Can anyone recommend me a good source for the history of land purchases by Jews/Zionist groups like the JNF, pre-state? Who owned what, who sold what, who bought what where, etc.
While I don't have any sources on land purchases specifically, here's what I would recommend. Read any of Efraim Karsh's books to get a (needed) revisionist interpretation of the history, post WWI. I use his 2007 Islamic Imperialism in my university courses.
In it you'll find that the Arabs were not invading Israel in 1948 to help the poor Palestinian Arabs, but to increase the size of their own lands. Also, that the Egyptians, Syrians and Jordanians looked down on the Palestinians as second class and treated them as trash. Nasser did not want another Arab state on the Mediterranean and said so. Finally, you'll find that the Palestinians initially blamed the Arabs for their loss and hoped they could make a deal with the Israelis.
I find that it is generally better to read Karsh and Benny Morris side by side as reality checks on each other, though Karsh is much more the polemicist than Morris.
Still, the image of Arab nations scrambling to dominate the would-be state of Palestine sounds about right.
I'm sorry to say that there are no moderate "Palestinians." The mission statement of the Arab world is to wipe Israel off the map. You could give the Palestinians the entire city of Jerusalem and they would not be satisfied. It is so sad, but undeniably true. There will never be peace in the ME. The best outcome is containment of the terrorist threats that continually point at the Israelis and their state.
Tom I mostly agree with you. As for Mr. Hart, let's go throught his points:
1: The Balfour Declaration gave the Jews the right to a homeland in "Palestine." [I note that before 1948, Jews in the Land of Israel were called Palestinians; the Jerusalem Post was the Palestine Post.] The Balfour Declaration did not disturb the rights of the then residents in Palestine, nor did it give Palestine to the Jews immediately. It was a mandate that was supposed to hold Palestine until the Jews were ready for a state. The Jews proceeded to set up state apparatus during the period of the mandate. They also proceeded to buy up land and try to attract other Jews to settle in Palestine. Unfortunately, the British went back on their pledge and in 1939, when European Jewery most needed a haven, the British issued a white paper preventing Jewish migration into Palestine. The blood of the Holocaust stains perfidious Albion.
2. The Arabs fled for two reasons: One was they were told to do so by their leaders; and two was that at least some were afraid the Jews would massacre them as some Arabs had done to the Jews earlier (think Hebron).
3. Nobody has a claim to anything anywhere. What you have is what you can hold. The Franks hold France only because they overran Roman Gaul. The Angles and Saxons hold Britain because they overran Roman Britain which earlier had been overrun by the Romans. Americans have a claim to the United States because they overran Indian lands and Mexican lands. If the Jews "overran" Palestine, they're there because they can hold it. End of story.
Hamas is an Israeli creation? Please provide evidence.
As for the "far right" having to see reason, you must not have been following the news very closely. Ehud Olmert had given Abbas almost everything he wanted and Abbas couldn't get to yes. The problem is that the Arabs want one state in Palestine - An Arab one. That's how it's been since 1948 and that's how it is today. So who has to see reason, pray tell?
I must say I find point 3 to be extremely short sighted. This is a position that, in my opinion, will cost american lives in the future.
With regards to your final point. The "Wikileaks" revealed just how far the Palestinian Authority was willing to go for peace. Public noises "made for america" by Ehud Olmert do not impress.
Jack, interesting that we both come from Silver Spring.
Anyways...
1) While the Balfour Declaration didn't displace any Arabs, it altered the immigration policy of Palestine to something the local majority clearly opposed in order to change the demographic composition of the country. Today that would be a violation of the Geneva Accords.
2) The Arabs fled for a wide variety of reasons. Some fled because they feared massacre (especially after Jewish forces did, indeed, commit massacres at places like Dier Yassin). Some (almost exclusively women and children) fled because of an Arab advisory to do so. Some left because they didn't want to live in a country with a Jewish majority. Many fled just out of fear of the war. But the myth of a widespread Arab order for all (male and female) to leave is largely just that: a myth.
3) Then there is no right and wrong in the world and might makes right. If you meant this more weakly as saying that lands have changed hands many times in the past and there's no way to recreate the old demogrphics, fine. But that's a far cry from might makes right.
Two facts intentionally ignored when propagandists distort the history of Israel’s creation:
1. When the UN partitioned British Palestine, it was partitioned into Arab and Jewish zones. The Arabs refused and the Jews accepted. Palestinian Arabs began to attack Jewish settlements. Later when the Mandate expired, those in the Jewish zone declared independence, Arab nations attacked the next day.
2. When the Arabs attacked they encouraged ‘Palestinians’ living in the Jewish section to fight or leave with a promise of all the land for them with victory. The Jews in the surrounding Arab lands were either killed or expelled and they went to Israel.
Notice the difference, most Palestinians voluntarily left their lands at the bequest of Arabs who promised them the spoils of war; Jews were either killed or exiled to Israel.
Israeli’s have a legal and historical right to that land and to deny this only serves to push forward a anti-Israeli agenda.
