Eretz Israel is our unforgettable historic homeland...The Jews who will it shall achieve their State...And whatever we attempt there for our own benefit will redound mightily and beneficially to the good of all mankind. (Theodor Herzl, DerJudenstaat, 1896)

We offer peace and amity to all the neighbouring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all. The State of Israel is ready to contribute its full share to the peaceful progress and development of the Middle East.
(From Proclamation of the State of Israel, 5 Iyar 5708; 14 May 1948)

With a liberal democratic political system operating under the rule of law, a flourishing market economy producing technological innovation to the benefit of the wider world, and a population as educated and cultured as anywhere in Europe or North America, Israel is a normal Western country with a right to be treated as such in the community of nations.... For the global jihad, Israel may be the first objective. But it will not be the last. (Friends of Israel Initiative)
Showing posts with label Palestinian Arab Refugees. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palestinian Arab Refugees. Show all posts

Friday, 14 September 2018

David Singer: Trump Squeezes UNRWA, Checkmates PLO and Incentivises Jordan

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

President Trump has created a veritable diplomatic tsunami affecting the political fortunes of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), Hamas and Jordan – with his decision to cease all future donations to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) – currently US$360million per annum and comprising about 30 percent of UNRWA’s budget.

The numbers of UNRWA-registered Palestinian Arab refugees in Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza have been increasing in leaps and bounds annually because they include all the descendants of those Palestinian Arabs caught up in the 1948 and 1967 Arab-Israel wars.

Currently:
  • 2,175,000 live in Jordan – 370,000 of whom reside in 10 camps
  • 810,000 live in the West Bank – 200,000 of whom reside in 19 camps
  • 1,300,000 live in Gaza – 580,000 of whom reside in 8 camps
UNRWA only provides services to the camps. UNRWA does not administer or police the camps, as this is the responsibility of the host authorities.

Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza comprise 83 per cent of the territory of former Palestine.

For UNRWA to count as “refugees” people who are now living in Arab-controlled parts of the same country where their forebears once resided – is really an insult to one’s intelligence.

For UNRWA to tolerate a system of apartheid and segregation that allows those “refugees” to be divided into camp dwellers and non-camp dwellers makes a mockery of the humanitarian principles espoused by the United Nations and the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Struggling under an accumulated deficit of US$271 million before Trump’s hammer blow – UNRWA had already shut down or slated for closure many programs and laid off large numbers of employees – mainly Palestinian Arabs.

The further cuts UNRWA will now be forced to make following America’s defunding will be critical to the PLO, Hamas and Jordan – as “refugees” coming under their respective jurisdictions affected by substantial cuts to their well-established entitlements see others not similarly subjected.

UNRWA funding decisions cannot possibly please all these “refugees” – and those receiving UNRWA aid in Lebanon and Syria.

The PLO, Hamas and Jordan will be lobbying furiously for UNRWA funding cuts to not be made to “refugees” living under their governance. Serious political consequences could ensue if they fail.
Jordan – enjoying a long-standing peace treaty with Israel – currently houses 50 percent of the total of UNRWA registered Palestinian Arab “refugees” in the West Bank, Gaza and Jordan.

Jordan – 70 per cent of whose population comprises Palestinian Arabs or their descendants formerly living in Palestine west of the Jordan River – is eminently qualified to enter into direct negotiations with Israel to recover territory lost by it in the West Bank to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War.

Successful negotiations would enable Jordan to:
  • close the 29 refugee camps in Jordan and the West Bank currently housing 570,000 “refugees”
  • fully rehabilitate and integrate all 2,985,000 “refugees” within the general Arab populations residing in the West Bank and Jordan
  • extend Jordanian citizenship to all West Bank Arab residents
Trump’s promise of direct American bilateral assistance to Jordan would facilitate this outcome.
In one fell swoop – Trump has:
  • Squeezed UNRWA into making refugee-relief choices that could affect the political futures of the PLO, Hamas and Jordan
  • Checkmated the PLO’s claim to continue to be the sole spokesman for the Palestinian Arabs because it lacks absolute authority to influence how UNRWA reduces current funding to the Palestinian Arab “refugees” living in Gaza and Jordan
  • Incentivised Jordan to fill the diplomatic void left by the PLO by agreeing to begin negotiations with Israel on Trump’s peace plan without any preconditions
Bucking – not backing – Trump is a sure-fire recipe for committing political suicide.

Author’s note: The cartoon – commissioned exclusively for this article—is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators –  whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog

Friday, 7 September 2018

David Singer: Jordan’s Re-entry into West Bank Looms Large as Trump Dumps PLO

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

Two major developments this past week could see a large part of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) being reunified with Jordan – as existed between 1950 and 1967 – or becoming a Jordanian enclave – under President Trumps’ yet-to-be- announced “ultimate deal” intended to resolve the100 years-old Arab-Jewish conflict.

Those developments were:
  1. Trump immediately stopped all further American financial aid to UNRWA:
The PLO refusedto have anything to do with Trump’s slowly-gestating peace proposals after Trump recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in December 2017.

This PLO anti-Trump stance has continued unabated despite US Ambassador to the United Nations – Nikki Haley – publicly warning the PLO last January when asked about future US funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for Palestinian Arab refugees:
“The President has basically said he doesn’t want to give any additional funding, or stop funding, until the Palestinians agree to come back to the negotiation table. We still very much want to have a peace process. Nothing changes with that. The Palestinians now have to show they want to. As of now, they’re not coming to the table, but they ask for aid. We’re not giving the aid. We’re going to make sure that they come to the table.”
This week Trump gave up waiting – ending all future donations to UNRWA including $300 million pledged for this year.

More than 2 million UNRWA registered Palestinian Arab refugees live in Jordan – most of whom have full citizenship. Nearly 370,000 – or 18 per cent – live in 10 refugee camps.

The West Bank has nearly 775,000 UNRWA registered Palestinian Arab refugees – a quarter of who live in 19 camps.

Trump’s proven propensity for financially helping those States that help him achieve his goals could well see a large part of this retired UNRWA funding being redirected to Jordan – if Jordan replaces the PLO and enters into direct negotiations with Israel on finally resolving sovereignty in the West Bank.
  1. The PLO announced it had refused Trump’s proposal to create a Jordan-West Bank confederation:
Israel and the PLO have been unable to agree on the creation of an additional Arab State between Israel and Jordan after fruitless negotiations conducted over the last 25 years.

Rejecting a Jordan-West Bank confederation now sees the PLO hoisted by its own petard– leaving Jordan to fill the yawning diplomatic void by stepping in and negotiating with Israel to engineer Jordan’s return to a large part of the West Bank – occupied by Jordan from 1948 until its loss to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War.

Restoring Jordanian citizenship to the West Bank Arab population – as existed between 1950 and 1988 – would once again see parity of rights re-established between the Arab populations spanning both sides of the Jordan River.

The 29 refugee camps in Jordan and the West Bank could be closed and their inhabitants integrated into the general population. “Palestinian refugees” would be relics of the past.
No Arab or Jew living in the West Bank would be forced to move.

Palestinian Arabs residing in other Arab countries could emigrate to this newly-merged Jordan-West Bank entity – which might even choose to rename itself “Palestine” – comprising as it would about 80% of the territory contained in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. Israel would end up exercising sovereignty in about 19 per cent – leaving sovereignty in the remaining 1 per cent – Gaza – to be determined by Israel, Jordan and Egypt.

As with any good settlement – no-one would be 100 per cent happy – but 100 years of conflict would be ended and Trump would have pulled off yet another stunning success.

(Author’s note: The cartoon – commissioned exclusively for this article—is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators –  whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog)

Thursday, 30 August 2018

David Singer: Trump Turns Screws as PLO Creates Fake News on Jerusalem and Refugees

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:
 
President Trump cancelled more than $US200 million in aid to the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) this week – following his earlier decisions:
  • reducing America’s contribution to the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) by about $US300 million and
  • recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moving the US Embassy there.
An infuriated PLO has responded by making the following false claims concerning Jerusalem and aid to refugees in the West Bank and Gaza – which have been uncritically and unquestioningly reported as news:
  1. Jerusalem
PLO executive committee member Ahmed Tamimi exclaimed:
“Jerusalem is at the heart of the Palestinian, Arab and Islamic peoples”
This claim contravenes Article 1 of the Palestinian National Charter – which declares:
“Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.
Claiming the “Palestinian people” is a separate and distinct people from the “Arab people” – is deceptive and misleading.

Meanwhile, Husam Zomlot – head of the Palestinian General Delegation to the United States – stated:
“After Jerusalem and UNRWA, this (cutting of aid to the PLO) is another confirmation of abandoning the two-state solution and fully embracing Netanyahu’s anti-peace agenda.”
Negotiations to conclude the  “two state solution” – the creation of  a 22ndArab state with Jerusalem as its capital – in addition to the Arab state of Jordan created in 78 per cent of former Palestine in 1946 – ended in April 2014 after unsuccessful negotiations spanning 20 years.

Other solutions now need to be explored that should involve Jordan and possibly Egypt negotiating with Israel to return to these two existing Arab states territory once occupied by them in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), East Jerusalem and the Gaza District between 1948 and 1967.

2.   Cutting US financial aid to refugees in the West Bank and Gaza

PLO Executive Committee member Hanan Ashrawi declared:
“The rights of the Palestinian people are not for sale. There is no glory in constantly bullying and punishing a people under occupation. The U.S. administration has already demonstrated meanness of spirit in its collusion with the Israeli occupation and its theft of land and resources; now it is exercising economic meanness by punishing the Palestinian victims of this occupation.”
 Ashrawi ignored the following facts:
  • The West Bank currently has 775,000registered “refugees” – around a quarter of who live in 19 refugee camps– all of which have been under full PLO administrative control since 1993 as designated by the Oslo Accords.
  • Gaza has 3 millionregistered “refugees” – of who 500000 currently live in 8 refugee camps– all of which have been under Hamas governance since 2007.
  • Many of these camps and their inhabitants date back to 1949. Severe overcrowding problems, high rates of unemployment, personal safety and poor infrastructure are common to them all.
The PLO and Hamas have maintained this discriminatory two-tiered refugee segregation system in both Gaza and the West Bank for at least the last ten years.

The failure to close these camps and integrate their residents into the general Gazan and West Bank Arab populations is a damning indictment of Hamas and the PLO.
Expecting Trump to pick up the tab as these inhumane practices continue for crass political purposes is arrogant and unwarranted.

Trump has made it clear these funds will go to relieving genuine refugee distress in other parts of the world.

The PLO’s outright refusal to negotiate with Israel on Trump’s long-awaited peace plan – inflamed by these latest false claims – only ensures the PLO’s increasingly-rapid slide into political irrelevance.

(Author’s note: The cartoon – commissioned exclusively for this article—is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators –  whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog)

Sunday, 8 July 2018

David Singer: Hamas and PLO Entrench Apartheid in Gaza and West Bank

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:
 
The British Foreign Office showed appalling judgement when scheduling a visit by Prince William to a refugee camp in the West Bank which should have been closed down long ago. The Prince  – obviously moved by what he saw – remarked:
“I saw at Jalazon (refugee camp) the tremendous hardships faced by the refugees, and I can only imagine the difficulties of life lived under these conditions, the ed (sic) resources and the lack of opportunity”
Regrettably Prince William failed to question why:
1. Jalazon had not been dismantled during the past 25 years after it came under Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) control.
2. Jalazon’s inhabitants should still be classified as “refugees” when they are living in part of former Palestine now under PLO occupation.
Prince William’s visit was closely followed by a meeting between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and United Nations (UN) Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process  – Nickolay Mladenov.

During their meeting Abbas stressed the UN's important role in providing protection for
the “Palestinian people” and the necessity of continuing to provide services to the “Palestinian refugees” through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).

Undiscussed between them was why the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza have failed to close down the 27 refugee camps still remaining within their respective fiefdoms.

The West Bank currently has 775,000 registered “refugees” – around a quarter of who live in 19 refugee camps. Most of the others live in West Bank towns and villages. Some camps are located next to major towns and others are in rural areas.

UNRWA provides services in these 19 Palestine refugee camps – but does not administer or police the camps – as this is the responsibility of the PLO – intriguingly identified as the “host authority” by UNRWA Gaza has 1.3 million registered “refugees” – of who 500,000 currently live in 8 refugee camps. As in the West Bank – UNRWA does not administer or police these camps -this being the responsibility of the “host authority” – Hamas.

The West Bank refugee camps are all located within Areas “A” and “B” – some 40% of the territory of the West Bank – being under full PLO administrative control as designated by the Oslo Accords. 95% of the West Bank Arab population – including all those living in the refugee camps – live in Areas “A” and “B”

Many of these camps and their inhabitants date back to 1949. Severe overcrowding problems, high rates of unemployment, personal safety and poor infrastructure are common to them all.
Gaza’s entire population has been under Hamas occupation since 2007.

The PLO and Hamas have maintained their discriminatory two-tiered refugee segregation systems in Gaza and the West Bank for at least the last ten years under which:
1. 800000 “refugees” live in refugee camps
2. 1,570,000 “refugees” live among the general population
Closing these refugee camps and integrating their long-suffering populations among the general population are long overdue. The failure of the PLO and Hamas to do so allows them to maintain and exploit a hard core of hate-filled and desperate Palestinian Arabs who can be readily incited and used as pawns and martyrs to undertake acts of terrorism against Israel.

UN and UNRWA complicity in refusing to pressure the PLO and Hamas to close these squalid camps and end an ever-worsening humanitarian crisis is reprehensible, immoral and completely inexcusable.

Entrenching apartheid by segregation and discrimination whilst denying equal rights to all members of the Arab populations in Gaza and the West Bank spells disaster for both Hamas and the PLO.

(Author’s note: The cartoon – commissioned exclusively for this article—is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”– one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators – whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog)

Sunday, 15 February 2015

'She Also Exposed The Big Lie Which Tells Of A "Zionist Invasion" Of A Supposedly Arab Country': A seminal author remembered

 "My goal is to shed light on those same facts and relationships that were hidden from me, and to give this book to others who made the same mistakes that I did."

So explained Joan Peters (pictured), author of From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine, who died recently.

You have to be over a certain age to remember Joan Peters' book, published by Harper & Row, and the sensational reception it had.  The year was 1984, and it debunked the received wisdom regarding the history and demography of the land called Palestine, which led, inevitably, to controversy and attempts to discredit her conclusions.

The fruit of her researches surprised Joan Peters herself, for although Jewish herself (she was born Joan Friedman in Chicago in 1936) she really only became interested in the subject while covering the Yom Kippur War for CBS and was, it seems, inclined towards the Palestinian Arab cause when she started on her book.

Discussing her work, the prominent scholar Dr Daniel Pipes has observed, inter alia:
'Although the Jews alone moved to Palestine for ideological reasons, they were not alone in emigrating there. Arabs joined them in large numbers, from the first aliyah in 1882 to the creation of Israel in 1948. "The Arabs were moving into the very areas where Jewish settlement had preceded them and was luring them." Arab immigration received much less attention because both the Turkish and British administrators (before and after 1917, respectively) took little interest in them....
As a result, officials in Palestine counted only a small percentage of the Arab immigrants. British records for 1934 show only 1,734 non-Jews as legal immigrants and about 3,000 as illegals. Yet, according to a newspaper interview in August 1934 with the governor of the Hauran district in Syria, "In the last few months from 30,000 to 36,000 Hauranese had entered Palestine and settled there." In 1947, British officials had counted only 37,000 Arabs as the aggregate of non-Jewish immigrants in Palestine since 1917—hardly more than had come from one district of Syria in less than one year alone.
Non-Jewish immigrants came from all parts of the Middle East, including Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Transjordan (as Jordan was once known), Saudi Arabia, the Yemens, Egypt, Sudan, and Libya. Thanks to British unconcern, Arab immigrants were generally left alone and allowed to settle in Mandatory Palestine. So many Arabs came, Miss Peters estimates, that "if all those Jews and all those Arabs who arrived in ... Palestine between 1893 and 1948 had remained, and if they were forced to leave now, a dual exodus of at least equal proportion would in all probability take place. Palestine would be depopulated once again." ....
What took hundreds of thousands of Arabs to Palestine? Economic opportunity. The Zionists brought the skills and resources of Europe. Like other Europeans settling scarcely populated areas in recent times—in Australia, Southern Africa, or the American West—the Jews in Palestine initiated economic activities that created jobs and wealth on a level far beyond that of the indigenous peoples. In response, large numbers of Arabs moved toward the settlers to find employment.
The conventional picture has it that Jewish immigrants bought up Arab properties, forcing the former owners into unemployment. Miss Peters argues exactly the contrary, that the Jews created new opportunities, which attracted emigrants from distant places. To the extent that there was unemployment among the Arabs, it was mostly among the recent arrivals....
The data unearthed by Joan Peters indicate that Arabs benefited economically so much by the presence of Jewish settlers from Europe that they traveled hundreds of miles to get closer to them.
In turn, this explains why the definition of a refugee from Palestine in 1948 is a person who lived there for just two years: because many Arab residents in 1948 had immigrated so recently. The usual definition would have cut out a substantial portion of the persons who later claimed to be refugees from Palestine.
Thus, the "Palestinian problem" lacks firm grounding. Many of those who now consider themselves Palestinian refugees were either immigrants themselves before 1948 or the children of immigrants. This historical fact reduces their claim to the land of Israel; it also reinforces the point that the real problem in the Middle East has little to do with Palestinian-Arab rights.'  [Emphasis added, here and below]
Nadav Shragai now notes:
'....[Joan Peters] slaughtered the sacred cow known as "the Palestinian refugee problem" by revealing just how the United Nations altered the criteria for gaining refugee status in order to exacerbate the problem well beyond its proper dimensions. Peters discovered that the U.N.'s changing requirements for being listed as a Palestinian refugee essentially turned them into something else, something far different from other refugees in distant crises.
Peters even offered proof that many of the Palestinian refugees that earned special status in the eyes of the U.N. were never even residents of prestate Israel "from time immemorial," contradicting a long-standing Palestinian claim. Instead, these were immigrants who had only arrived quite recently.
There were many who followed in Peters' footsteps. They backed up her facts, but she was the first to bring them to light. Peters was the first to challenge the underlying assumptions of Palestinian wretchedness and refugee status. ...
The debate that was sparked by Peters' book has never been more relevant since it laid the foundations for later works of research on the subject of refugee status. Prior to the "birth" of the Palestinian matter, the customary definition of refugee was an individual who was forced to leave their residence from time immemorial due to war, hostile actions, or expulsion.
The U.N.'s alternate definition of refugee, which was applied solely to the Palestinians, states that a refugee is anyone who lived in the area that currently encompasses the State of Israel for a period of two years prior to the founding of the state in 1948. The Arab League, which was the driving force behind the newly reconfigured definition, managed to significantly inflate the number of refugees. Indeed, many of the refugees who fled or were expelled from the country did immigrant to prestate Israel during the British Mandate period.
Ze'ev Galili, a veteran Israeli journalist, often used his newspaper column to cite Peters' work. He even had a hand in the reissuance of her book in the early part of the previous decade.
"Not only did Peters expose the bluff of the criteria for refugee status," he said, "but she also exposed the big lie which tells of a 'Zionist invasion' of a supposedly Arab country, even though it is known that the First Aliyah consisted of Jews coming to an empty country, while a very significant percentage of the Arab population in 1948 were immigrants who came here after the advent of Zionism."...
Peters found that the Arab population grew in proportion to the rising Jewish presence in the country. Indeed, the economic prosperity generated by the budding Zionist enterprise, particularly in the latter stages of the 19th century, spurred internal Arab migration from Transjordan and the highlands (the traditional areas of Arab settlement in Palestine). It also invited illegal Arab immigration from all over the Middle East. Arabs settled along the coastal plain and the Shfela region, both areas that were inhabited primarily by Jews.
Peters' conclusion was clear: Most of the Palestinian refugees of 1948 who fled the coastal area were not, as the Palestinians claim, inhabitants of the land "from time immemorial," but instead were recent newcomers. They were not refugees. Instead, they were economic migrants who eventually would return to their original homes after the founding of the state....
The number of documents that Peters unearthed was tremendous. Her prolific research was also a source of confusion. Some disagreed with the numbers she cited in her research, but even her critics had a difficult time contradicting what was painfully obvious -- hundreds of thousands of Arabs had settled in the heart of Jewish-populated areas. When they were expelled, they were given the status of refugees, even though they had not been here "from time immemorial.".... 
Read  the entire article here

Sunday, 24 March 2013

Ten Misconceptions About The Middle East Conflict (video)

This fine, jauntily informative video, from the Jerusalem Institute of Justice, should be mandatory viewing! 


Hat tip: reader Ian

Thursday, 14 March 2013

"Glory To A Liberated & An Arab Palestine" (video)

Here's how the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) brainwashes schoolchildren into believing in the centrality of the "Refugees' Right of Return" ...


(Hat tip: reader Shirlee)

Thursday, 21 February 2013

"According To International Law, There Are No Palestinian Refugees"

Israel Demonisers At A New York Rally
'Much has been written and said about the Palestinian refugee problem, and much blame has been cast at Israel for not allowing those “refugees” to “return” to their old homes in Israel. However, in the context of Palestinian Arabs,“refugee” is a propaganda term with no basis in law or fact. According to international law, there are no Palestinian refugees.

"Refugee" is defined by the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted in Geneva under the auspices of the United Nations. "A refugee, according to the Convention, is someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion." (Introductory note by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.)

With regard to Palestinian Arabs who, in 1948-1949, left their homes in areas that became the State of Israel, there are two crucial elements in the definition of refugee: (a) "country of origin", with emphasis on the word "country", and (b) "fear of being persecuted".

Let's examine these elements, starting with the reason for the inability of the so-called refugees to return to their former homes....'

So begins a cogent article entitled "Reflections On Refugees, New Jersey, and Broken Cameras" by Joel B that's carried here and is recommended reading.

Sunday, 8 July 2012

More Flight Than Expulsion: Benny Morris On The Creation Of The Arab Refugee Problem (videos)

These are interesting and illuminating videos.

In the first, Benny Morris begins his talk with a discussion of the controversy regarding refugee numbers and the way the Palestinian Arab refugee issue has escalated over time.

In the second (which is especially worth looking at) he describes the four stages in the genesis of the Palestininian Arab refugee problem.  It will be seen that voluntary flight by the Arabs rather than deliberate expulsion by the Jews was the dominant factor in the creation of the problem. He also shows that the actions of the Israelis towards the Palestinian Arabs were motivated by the fact that the Arab nations wished to destroy the State of Israel and simply wouldn't compromise.

In the third he examines the absence of a coherent policy on the part of the Arab leadership regarding evacuation.  He puts into context the atrocities that occurred on both sides. And he discusses the reasons for the perpetuation of the refugee problem, a discussion that continues into the fourth video.



Hat tip: AustralianNeoCons

Thursday, 24 May 2012

David Singer On UNESCO, UNWRA, & The Refugee Issue

In my previous post I linked to Isi Leibler's must-read article on what he reasonably terms the "Nakba Hoax".

I turn now to another Australian voice on a related theme.

Here, courtesy as usual of the antipodean J-Wire service, is Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer's latest article.  It's entitled "Palestine – UNWRA and UNESCO promote a state of confusion".

Writes David Singer:

'A crisis of diplomatic confusion seems to have arisen between two affiliate organizations of the United Nations following the announcement by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNWRA) of its intention to upgrade the dilapidated conditions in some of the refugee camps under its control - rather than taking progressive steps to close them down following recognition of the State of Palestine by UNESCO on 31 October 2011.

The upgrades will take place with the help of German Government funding in improving health clinics, sanitation and advanced education in coordination with local committees in five camps in the West Bank and two in Jordan.

Certainly any improvements to the daily lives of refugees and the abject conditions under which they have lived for the last six decades should be regarded as a welcome initiative.

However the recognition of the State of Palestine by UNESCO – and with it an end to Palestinian homelessness – should have also signalled the beginning of the dismantlement of the refugee camps and a structured program to achieve this humanitarian goal.

The vast resources available to UNWRA should surely now be better employed to assist the permanent resettlement of Palestinian refugees in their newly recognized state. Yet UNWRA has remained silent on implementing any such plans.

One of the camps slated for an upgrade is the Dheishe refugee camp – at present home to 13000 refugees. This camp is situated on the outskirts of Bethlehem in Area A of the West Bank – an area completely under the administrative and military control of the Palestinian Authority.

If there are any areas that can be readily identified as forming part of the newly-recognized state of Palestine – it is those areas that comprise Area A under the Oslo Accords - which currently cover 18% of the West Bank and include 55% of the total Arab population of the West Bank. Not one Jew lives in Area A.

On December 21, 1995, Israeli troops withdrew from Bethlehem and three days later the city came under the complete administration and military control of the Palestinian National Authority in conformance with the Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1995.

One could indeed ask why Dheishe refugee camp has not been shut down at any time during the last 17 years of its existence – given that resposibility for the lives of its inhabitants was always under the complete authority and control of the Palestinian Authority.

The reasons profferred till now have been the lack of a Palestinian state to end Palestinian homelessness and a belief that one day the residents would be entitled to return to live in what is now Israel. This latter reason has never been – and will never be – an option that can ever be realised unless the State of Israel itself is dismantled.

The UNESCO decision to recognize the existence of an independent State of Palestine has brought with it an end to claims of Palestinian homelessness. .

Yet Habis al-Aisa - a Dheishe resident – still believes nothing has changed as he laments:
"We’re refugees, and the U.N. should be totally responsible for our needs and our situation, because our status is an international political issue."
Another resident, Othman Abu Omar, comments:
"We hope one day to be done with dependence. Everybody should depend on himself."
Sandi Hilal – the director of UNRWA’s “camp improvement program” in the West Bank – also seems to be under the same misapprehension as to the change in status of those under his charge when adding:
"Improving the daily life of refugees doesn’t jeopardize their right to return back home."
Can the Dheishe occupants still claim the status of “refugees” – now that they have their own State – a goal that has been pursued with international support and diplomacy for the last 19 years?

Does UNWRA’s stated position on the "right to return home" mean "to the UNESCO recognized State of Palestine" – or does it mean "to Israel"?  [Emphasis added]

It would appear that UNWRA is having problems comprehending the enormity of the UNESCO decision and the changes that have occurred to the status of those whom it has looked after for 64 years.

The United Nations has recognized as Palestinian refugees those – Palestinian Arabs  and their descendants – who registered with UNRWA after fleeing their homes from what is now Israel. They are covered by the U.N. resolutions and eligible to receive the agency’s services even if not resident in the camps, but not if they attain citizenship or asylum in another country.

The Palestinian refugees have enjoyed a special status not accorded to any other refugee groups world wide during the past 64 years. That status is – and has always been – privileged and discriminatory and needs to be ended without delay – especially now that a Palestinian state has been internationally recognized and accepted by the 194 member states of UNESCO.

UNWRA now needs to rise to the challenges and the opportunities the UNESCO decision has presented – and implement a program for the closing of the refugee camps.

UNWRA and UNESCO should be meeting to jointly plan such a humanitarian program to bring the long running and festering issue of the Palestinian refugees to an end.

Whilst UNESCO recognizes the existence of a a Palestinian State and UNWRA apparently does not, one can only conclude that the State of Palestine is rapidly acquiring a reputation for being known as "the State of Confusion".

The sooner the refugee camps start being dismantled – the better the prospects for a resolution of the long running Jewish-Arab conflict in former Palestine.'

Friday, 6 April 2012

Michelle Marks A Milestone: Justice For The Refugees

"Justice for Jewish refugees from Arab and Muslim countries has at long last become official Israeli government policy," writes Michelle  Huberman, Creative Director of Harif, the the UK Association of Jews from the Middle East and North Africa.
 'It has taken more than sixty years, but here at Harif ... we are celebrating this momentous event.
 No amount of grassroots campaigning could work without the official support of the Israeli government. And this week, that support came.
 On Tuesday, the deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon held a conference in Jerusalem to launch his ministry's report and recommendations for highlighting the issue of 870,000 Jewish refugees driven out of Arab countries.
 Israel's Jewish population is made up of 52%  Sephardim/Mizrahim who were forced to leave their homes and possessions in Muslim lands. Not not only have they never received compensation, but their plight has never been internationally recognised.
 Hitherto, the Israeli government has been hesitant to raise the Jewish refugee issue, for fear that the Arabs would raise the Palestinian refugee issue. But the Arabs have never ceased raising the Palestinian refugee issue while the Israeli government has been silent.
 "I would call this conference Yemoth Ha-Mashiah (The Days of the Messiah Coming)," Levana Zamir, president of the Jews from Egypt in Israel, told me after attending the conference.  At this very emotional event, Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon announced a new state policy regarding Jews who were forced to flee from their homes in Arab countries.
 "We have to correct a historic injustice. But, in a very pragmatic way," Ayalon told the audience.... '
 Read the rest of Michelle Huberman's article here

Tuesday, 2 August 2011

A British Ambassador On The Palestinian Arab Refugees

I decided to pay a call on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Middle East blogs, having neglected them for quite a while.

On a blog posted on 20 June to mark World Refugee Day, Britain's woman in Lebanon, our old friend Frances Guy (pictured, with a certain notorious Hezbollah cleric she admired, the late Sheikh Fadlallah), writes, inter alia:
"A timely reminder too this morning on the BBC that the world's biggest refugee problem is here in the Middle East; 5 million Palestinians, who technically don't yet have a home to return to. (A troubling thought and arguably unique in refugee situations, where refugees, however traumatised can dream of going home one day). The UNRWA spokesman argued vigorously that there can be no peace in the Middle East until the refugee situation is dealt with. There has been a tendancy [sic] to say that other issues need to be dealt with first. But these refugees deserve better. 
They also deserve better treatment in the interim, as I have argued before. I hope the new Lebanese government will take its responsibilities seriously and make a commitment to granting Palestinian residents in Lebanon full rights; including above all, access to work." [My emphasis] http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/roller/guy/entry/refugees
 I assume Ambassador Guy, in the phrase "technically don't yet have a home to return to,"  is envisaging a future Palestinian state as the destination of these "refugees" and not hinting that Israel should take them in.
I recommend this post to her: http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2010/09/in-contrast-to-palestine-partitions.html and remind her of all the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees who fled Arab countries.

Her post has attracted a lone comment, from a pro-Palestinian activist, who writes:
'Dear Ambassador
 I could not agree with you more. We need to find a solution to the 5,000,000 Palestinian refugees. How long have we being saying this? Why have we 5,000,000 Palestinian refugees? Where did they come from? Why are they not allowed to go home?
 It is good that you bring it to our intention but surely after 60 years we expect something better from the FCO. The FCO keep on saying that we need to support the dialogue between Israel and the Palestinains. We have not been honest brokers in these communications. We do not speak to all the representatives of the Palestinains [sic]. Moreover, we bend over backwards to support Israel. The Human Rights report in 2010 produced by the FCO demonstrates clearly that Israel is no friend of democracy and theferore [sic] should be no friend of the UK.. Israel treat their arab citizens terribly. They already run apartheid policies against there own citizens, never mind the millions they hold under occupation. 
Should we not agree that the 1948 UN agreement got it wrong. Why do we not go back to the drawing board and decide the correct solution for all the peo[p]le currently living in Palestine. Do we let a fanatical religious minority decide matters' [My emphasis]
It's disappointing that such a comment has been accepted for publication on the FCO website, with no attempt at rebuttal.

More disturbing is the fact that Frances Guy expresses with impunity her own views on foreign policy rather than doing what as an ambassador she ought to be doing - strictly reflecting the official views of the elected government of the day. 

Friday, 29 July 2011

Wednesday, 29 June 2011

Is Jordan Palestine? (videos)

This video is one of several available that insists that it is.


And so does this instantly recognisable gentleman.
I posted the script of Geert Wilders's speech in Tel Aviv at the time he made it.  But if you'd like to see the controversial Dutch politician actually delivering it, here he is, warning that "ideologies cannot be defeated by concessions" and that the conflict in the Middle East "is not about land and borders but about Islamic jihadism":


Monday, 27 June 2011

"Get Out So That We Can Get In": How the Arabs (not Israel) caused the refugee problem

According to blogger Richard Millett, reporting on a meeting held at Westminster under the auspices of the London-based Palestine Return Centre, our old friend Lib Dem life peer Baroness Tonge
"finished [her] talk by describing her dream that one day all the Palestinian refugees will unite and march together to claim back their homeland. She said it would be impossible for Israel to kill all of them." http://richardmillett.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/jenny-tonge-i-have-a-dream/
Voices, often raised hysterically, at other pro-Palestinian meetings hither and thither can also be heard advocating the return of the "refugees" - an occurrence that would, it goes without saying, destroy Israel by demography.  Just look at the two BBC programme videos on my Thursday post to witness such sentiments, which of course are symptomatic of the widespread - and perhaps in many instances wilfull - ignorance of the history of Israel and the Palestinian Arabs that characterises much of what passes for debate in the West on the issue of "Israel/Palestine".  Take a look, too, at my Saturday evening post, and Sylvia Hale's contention that the refugees were "expelled" from Israel, which must accord them the "right of return".

All this goes to show how brilliantly the anti-Israel propaganda machine has been in hijacking the historical narrative, and, conversely, how abysmal Israel's hasbara efforts have been on the question of the Nakba and the Palestinian Arab refugees.

Moreover, it was reported last week (several anti-Israel blogs have picked this up but I don't want to increase their traffic by linking to them), Hamas, blaming the plight of the refugees on the United Nations for Partition and subsequent inaction, has urged  the "refugees to stick to their demands of return and compensation and organize rallies year-round and not to be content with Nakba and Naksa days only."

It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Israelis have colluded in their own nightmare in this regard by acquiescing in the new-fangled label "Palestinians" for those previously known simply as Arabs.

For in so doing the Israelis unwittingly conceded the historical narrative to Arafat and his mates - the Israelis foolishly bolstered the fiction (now believed by so many ordinary men and women around the world) that there was a sovereign Arab people called "Palestinians" whose land was stolen from them.

Here's one of the Mandate-era posters by the oleh Franz Krausz that seems so far to have escaped  being snatched for propaganda purposes by those Israel-bashers who use the others as symbols of the Arab cause.

How correct, surely, is Israeli blogger Michelle Cohen's observation that:

'The biggest mistake Israelis make, is agreeing to call regional Arabs "Palestinians." 
It is exactly the same as supplying Arabs with ammunition with which to delegitimise Israel.  It is exactly like saying, "We agree with you — you were here first, this is your land and we stole it."
This is the Arab narrative anyway and we, as Israelis, are justifying this claim by agreeing to call regional Arabs by the name they have stolen.  If we wish to be taken seriously by the "international community", it is high time and highly recommended that we go back to calling "Palestinians" Arabs and make certain our voices are heard across the land, in Government, in Media and around the world.' http://www.israelifrontline.com/2010/11/when-arabs-became-palestinians.html
The historical reality is, despite Baroness Tonge, Ms Hale, and their ilk, and despite Arab denials, that the vast majority of the Arabs who fled in 1948 did so at the behest of their leaders, and that had those leaders not declared war on Israel with the aim of annihilating the fledgling state, there would have been no refugee problem.  Furthermore, as the pro-Palestinian activist should be well aware, the refugees were urged by the Jews of Eretz Israel to remain, and the fact that only one-fifth of the refugees were resettled in Arab lands was due to the Arabs' deliberate policy of using the refugees as pawns in their conflict with the Zionist Entity.

On 2 October 1947 the Va'ad Leumi, the National Council or Assembly of Palestinian Jewry, stated:
"The Jewish People extends the hand of sincere friendship and brotherhood to the Arab peoples and calls them to cooperate as free and equal allies for the sake of peace and progress, for the benefit of their respective countries."
On 3 December that same year the Va'ad issued an appeal:
"Arabs!  The National Council of Jews in Palestine sends you words of peace and calls on you not to follow those who invite you to riots and bloodshed.  The Jews plan to build their state...with complete cooperation and friendship.  They have no interest in destruction, but in construction.  The Jewish effort developed and enriched all of the country in the past - and it will continue to be in the future a perpetual source of blessing to Jews and Arabs alike.... Remove the inciters from your public forums and take the hand which is stretched out before you in peace."
On 12 April 1948 the Zionist General Council  declared:
"At this hour, when bloodshed and strife have been forced upon us, we turn to the Arabs in the Jewish state, and to nour neighbours on adjacent territories, with an appeal for brotherhood and peace."
Israel's Proclamation of Independence made by Ben-Gurion on 14 May 1948 similarly stated:
"In the midst of wanton aggression, we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the state of Israel to return to the ways of peace, and to play their part in the development of the state with full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions, provisional and permanent."
The Lebanese newspaper Sadar al Janub (16 August 1948) carried information from the Melkite Greek Catholic Archbishop of Galilee, Syrian-born George Selim Hakim:
'The refugees had long been confident that their absence from Palestine would not last long, that they would return within a few days, within a week or two.  Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the Zionist "gangs" very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile.'
 And then we have such documentation as the following:
"The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the act of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state.  The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem." (Emile Ghoury, Secretary of the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee, in an interview with the Beirut Telegraph, 6 September 1948)
"[T]he Jewish authorities, who were now in complete control in Haifa (save for limited districts still held by the British troops), urged all Arabs to remain in Haifa and guaranteed them protection and security.  As far as I know, most of the British civilian residents whose advice was asked by Arab friends told the latter that they would be wise to stay. However, of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa, not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained.  Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight.  There is but little doubt that the most potent of these factors were [sic] the announcements made over the air by the Arab Higher Executive, urging all Arabs in Haifa to quit.... It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."  (The Economist, London, 2 October 1948)
"The Arab states which had encouraged the Palestinian Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the wayof the Arab invasion armies, have failed to keep their promise to help those refugees."  (Jordanian daily Falastin, 19 February 1949)
"The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab people that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade... He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw the Jews into the Mediterranean... Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighbouring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading armies mow them down."  (Habib Issa, editor of New York-based Lebanese newspaper Al Hoda, 8 June 1951)
"Who brought the Palestinians to Lebanon as refugees, suffering now from the malign attitude of newspapers and communal leaders, who have neither honour nor conscience?  Who brought them over in dire straits and penniless, after they lost their honour?  The Arab states, and Lebanese amongst them, did it." (Beirut Muslim weekly Kul-Shay, 19 August 1951)
"For the flight and fall of the other villages it is our leaders who are responsible because of their dissemination of rumours exaggerating Jewish crimes and describing them as atrocities in order to inflame the Arabs... By spreading rumours of Jewish atrocities, killings of women and children, etc, they instilled fear and terror in the hearts of the Arabs in Palestine until they fled leaving their homes and property to the enemy."  (Jordanian daily Al Urdun, 9 April 1953).
 'We were masters in our land, happy with our lot ... but overnight everything changed.  The Arab government told us "Get out so that we can get in" - so we got out but they [the Arab government] did not get in.'  (Jordanian journal Ad-Difaa, 6 September 1954)
"All of a sudden the people of Jaffa began to evacuate their towns, abandoning it in the middle of a fight, even before its climax... I now see that we fought only half-heartedly... Our many quarrels kept us too busy.  We left the country of our own free will believing we were going on a short visit, a trip and soon we would return as if nohing had happened  and as if there had never been a war."  (Mahmoud Seif ed-Din Irani, With The People, Amman, 1956)
"As early as the first months of 1948 the Arab League issued orders exhorting the people to seek temporary refuge in the neighbouring countries, later to return to their abodes in the wake of the victorious Arab armies and obtain their share of abandoned Jewish properties." (Bulletin of the Research Group of European Migration Problems, January 1957, The Hague, pp. 10-11)
'The Arabs' eyes were blinded and their brains clogged.  They were confused by promises and deluded by their leaders.  The Palestinian Arabs were ignorant and easily led astray.  They were short-sighted and unthinking and subjected to  gangster leadership...which herded them like docile sheep... Many left temporarily, they thought, to await the passing of the storm... The leaders rattled their sabres, delivered fiery speeches and wrote stirring articles.  Iraq's Prime Minister had thundered "We shall smash the country with our guns and destroy and obliterate every place the Jews will seek shelter in.  The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down." (Nimr Al-Harawi, former commander of the paramilitary al-Najjada youth organisation in Palestine, Sir am Nakba: The Secret Behind The Disaster, Nazareth, 1955)
"The 15th of May 1948 arrived... On that very day the Mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead." (Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom, 12 October 1963)
 (My source for all the quotations in italics is Chapter Three of Isi Leibler's The Case for Israel, a fact-packed paperback published in 1972 by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, of which Mr Leibler was President for many years before making aliya in 1999.)

Tuesday, 14 June 2011

"Where Is The Outcry When Arabs Build Illegally On JNF-Owned Land?"

That's a question asked by Michelle Huberman, a UK-based Jerusalem Post blogger, in an interesting piece about the Jewish National Fund (and other things).

"How many people," she asks, 
"know that the JNF lays claim to 73,974 dunams in southern Syria ...? The earliest purchase was made in the 1880s when it was under Ottoman rule. Surely they should have been demanding compensation from the Syrian government? Maybe if this had come to public attention, it could have been negotiated for the Palestinian refugees that the Syrian government have allowed to fester and more recently mobilised to storm Israel's borders.
The same in Lebanon: 4,000 dunams....
Where is the outcry when Arabs build illegally on JNF-owned land? There is an extremely tangled web of Jewish ownership in Arab areas. There are hundreds of thousands of Arab squatters in 'Arab east Jerusalem' who live on land still owned by the Jewish National Fund....
.... In total 145,976 dunams of Jewish land is said to have come under Jordanian control....
Another 16,684.421 dunams of Jewish land in the rural West Bank - including the Gush Etzion settlements, land between Nablus, Jenin and Tulkarm, and in Bethlehem and Hebron - were seized by the Jordanians after 1948...."

Friday, 13 May 2011

A Jordanian's Realism on the Refugees' Return

In their zeal to eradicate the Zionist Entity, the Western demonstratrators pictured, and others of their ilk, may continue to be divorced from reality, screaming for a policy that would end Israel's existence as a Jewish State, but Dr Fahd Al-Fanek, formerly chairman of the board of the Jordanian government daily Al-Rai, is one man in the Arab world who knows better - and says so openly.

In an op-ed in that newspaper he's advised the Palestinian Authority to drop its demand that the "refugees" of 1948 (with whom, of course, it lumps not only the people who actually left their homes at that time, but their descendants, bringing the total to several million persons).

Writes Dr Al-Fanek:
“The realistic commentator is entitled to say that the Palestinian Authority's rejection of Obama's plan... means that the Palestinians will get neither a state nor the [right of] return – because the rejection of this paradigm does not mean that the Palestinians will [obtain the right to] return to [the lands] that have become Israel [ie: the 1948 territories].”
It seems that the Palestinian Authority has hope, however small, that the refugees' right to return to Israel will [actually] be realized. But a realistic analysis must recognize that the [refugees'] return is impossible under the framework of a peaceful resolution, since Israel has no intention of [relinquishing its identity] as a Jewish state...
As for the distant future, as time goes on, the return [of the refugees] will be less and less feasible, even if it becomes a formal possibility. Even now, no Palestinian in the diaspora under the age of 70 is [actually] familiar with Palestine. Moreover, most of the Palestinian villages to which [the refugees] demand to return no longer exist, and most of the Palestinians living in the diaspora have received foreign citizenship and settled in their countries of residence.
We still remember how dozens of senior Palestinian officials for whom Yasser Arafat obtained the right of return, and for whom a farewell [ceremony] was held at the [Allenby] Bridge, came back to Amman within two weeks!”
Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/144072

Saturday, 16 April 2011

The True Number of Palestinian Arabs Who Fled Their Homes in 1948

In a feat of scholarship entitled "How Many Palestinian Arab Refugees Were There?", Efraim Karsh trounces the inflated figures and calculates the true number of Palestinian Arabs who fled their homes in 1948.  His article appears in the current month's Israel Affairs (http://www.jidaily.com/R8Gtt/e)
Asa point of interest, I'd like to point out that Sir Raphael Cilento (pictured), mentioned in the article, was an Australian and well-known, I'm afraid, as a judeophobe, linked in later life to the far right Australian League of Rights.

Here's Karsh's long and footnoted piece, complete with demographic tables and footnotes:

The number of Palestinian Arabs fleeing their homes during the 1948 war has constituted one of the most intractable bones of contentions of the Arab-Israeli conflict, not least since the Palestinians have insisted on the "right of return" of these individuals and their descendants to territory that has long been part of the state of Israel.

More than a half-century later, these exaggerated initial numbers have swollen still further: as of June 2000, according to UNRWA, the total had climbed close to three and three-quarters million, though it readily admits that the statistics are largely inflated. For its part the PLO set a still higher figure of 5 million refugees, while Israel has unofficially estimated the current number of refugees and their families at closer to 2 million.

Using a wealth of declassified Arab, Israeli, and British documents, this article seeks to provide as comprehensive and accurate an estimate as possible of the actual number of refugees in the wake of the 1948 war.

At the end of the war, the Israeli government set the number of Palestinian refugees at 550,000-600,000; the British Foreign Office leaned toward the higher end of this estimate. But within a year, as large masses of people sought to benefit from the unprecedented influx of international funds to the area, some 962,000 alleged refugees had been registered with the newly-established UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).

The extraordinary coverage of the 1948 war notwithstanding, the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem during the five-and-a-half months of fighting, from the partition resolution of November 29, 1947, to the proclamation of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948, passed virtually unnoticed by the international community. Nor for that matter did the Arab states, burdened as they were with a relentless flow of refugees, or even the Palestinian leadership itself, have a clear idea of the dispersal's full magnitude, as demonstrated by the mid-June 1948 estimate of the prominent Palestinian leader, Emile Ghouri, of the number of refugees at 200,000: less than two thirds the actual figure. A few weeks later, after thousands more Arabs had become refugees, a Baghdad radio commentator was still speaking of 300,000 evacuees "who are forced to flee from the Jews as the French were forced to flee from the Nazis." Taking their cue from these claims, W. De St. Aubin, delegate of the League of Red Cross Societies to the Middle East, estimated the number of Arab refugees (in late July) at about 300,000, while Sir Raphael Cilento, director of the UN Disaster Relief Project (DRP) in Palestine, set the number at 300,000-350,000 (in early August).[1]

Paradoxically it was the Israelis who initially came with the highest, and most accurate, estimates. In early June Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion was told by Yossef Weitz of the Jewish National Fund (JNF) that "some 123,000 Arabs left 155 villages in the Jewish state's territory; another 22,000 left 35 villages outside the Jewish state: a total of 145,000 evacuees and 190 villages. Seventy-seven thousand Arabs left five cities in the Jewish state's territory (Haifa, Beisan, Tiberias, Safad, Samakh). Another 73,000 left two cities [designed to remain] outside the state (Jaffa and Acre). Forty thousand Arabs left Jerusalem: a total of 190,000 from eight cities. All in all, 335,000 Arabs fled (including 200,000 from the UN ascribed Jewish territory)."[2]

A comprehensive report by the Hagana's intelligence service, comprising a detailed village-by-village breakdown of the exodus, set the number of Palestinian Arab evacuees in the six-month period between December 1, 1947 and June 1, 1948, at 391,000: 239,000 from the UN-ascribed Jewish state, 122,000 from the territory of the prospective Arab state, and 30,000 from Jerusalem. Another exhaustive Israeli study set the number of refugees (in late October) at 460,000, almost evenly divided between the rural and urban sectors.[3]

This estimate was substantially higher than the 360,000 figure in the report of the UN mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte, submitted to the General Assembly on September 16, or Cilento's revised estimate of 400,300 a couple of weeks later, and was virtually identical to the supplementary report submitted on October 18 by Bernadotte's successor, Ralph Bunche, which set the number of refugees at 472,000 and anticipated the figure to reach a maximum of slightly over 500,000 in the near future.[4]

By now, however, the Arabs had dramatically upped the ante. In a memorandum dispatched to the heads of the Arab states and Arab League Secretary-General Abdel Rahman Azzam in mid-August, the Palestine Office in Amman, an organization operating under the auspices of the Transjordan government, estimated the total number of refugees at 700,000, of whom 500,000 were in Palestine and the rest in the neighboring Arab states. The memo struck a responsive chord, for in October the Arab League set the number of refugees at 631,967, and by the end of the month official Arab estimates ranged between 740,000 and 780,000. When the newly-established United Nations Relief for Palestine refugees (UNRPR) began operating in December 1948, it found 962,643 refugees on its relief rolls.[5]

In conversations with British diplomats (in early October) Cilento described the figures supplied by the Arab authorities as unreliable, claiming that they increased from week to week in all areas irrespective of known movements of refugees from place to place. A large number of refugees had, for example, moved from the Nablus area to the Hauran in Syria while others from Jericho, Jerusalem and Transjordan had moved to Gaza. Similarly, at least 2,000 refugees had recently moved from the Egyptian port town of Kantara, on the Suez Canal, to Gaza. Yet the number of refugees in the areas from which these movements had taken place was in all cases reported as increasing instead of decreasing. Similar exaggerations were made in Syria where, according to Bunche's October report, the authorities claimed the existence of 30,000 refugees whereas the actual figure was no more than half that size.

Cilento expected as many as 400,000 Arabs to apply for UN relief in the coming winter on top of the 360,000-390,000 registered refugees, though these were not genuine refugees in the sense that they were living in their own homes and had not been "displaced." This, however, didn't prevent him, when the prediction was vindicated before the end of the year, from raising the number of refugees to 750,000. St. Aubin, who in September 1948 became the DRP's director of field operations, went a step further by placing the figure (in July 1949) at "approximately one million."

Admitting to having "some difficulty in separating out the real refugees from the rest, and in explaining the reasons for doing so to the Arab authorities," Cilento attributed this chaotic situation to a number of reasons:

* Refugees were registered on arrival and fed but their names were not struck off the list if they moved or died;
* Refugees moving from one area to another would check in and be fed at several points en route and at each would be added to the list of refugees in the area, in this way numbers increased on paper in areas vacated as well as at final destination;
* Local destitute persons were included in numbers although they were not properly refugees;
* Fraud and misrepresentation by officials and others to utilize supplies etc.;
* There were people who left their homes owing to disturbed conditions but returned to them shortly afterward, yet were briefly registered as refugees and the records remained.[6]
Sir John Troutbeck, head of the British Middle East office in Cairo, got a first-hand impression of this pervasive inflation of refugee numbers during a fact-finding mission to Gaza in June 1949. "The Quakers have nearly 250,000 refugees on their books," he reported to London.

They admit however that the figures are unreliable, as it is impossible to stop all fraud in the making of returns. Deaths for example are never registered nor are the names struck off the books of those who leave the district clandestinely. Some names too are probably registered more than once for the extra rations. But the Quakers assured me that they have made serious attempts to carry out a census and believe they have more information in that respect than the Red Cross organizations which are working in other areas. Their figures include Bedouin whom they feed and care for just like other refugees. They seemed a little doubtful whether this was a right decision, but once it had been taken it could not be reversed, and in any case the Bedouin, though less destitute than most of the refugees proper, are thought to have lost a great part of their possessions. They and the other refugees live in separate camps and in a state of mutual antipathy.[7]

This was hardly a novel phenomenon. Population figures of Palestinian Arab society, especially of rural Muslim communities, were notoriously unreliable, based as they were on exaggerated information provided by village headmen in order to obtain greater government support. As explained in the preface to the mandatory government's Village Statistics 1945, for all the "very detailed work" invested in this comprehensive compendium of rural Palestine, its estimates "cannot… be considered as other than rough estimates which in some instances may ultimately be found to differ even considerably, from the actual figures."[8]

The supplementary volume to the government's Survey of Palestine (1946), compiled in June 1947 for the information of the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), elaborated on the problematic nature of official demographic statistics:

For the years 1943-46 an investigation recently carried out by the Department of Statistics revealed that many cases of death, especially in rural areas, have not been reported. These omissions (which are mainly due to the attempt to obtain food rations of deceased persons) seriously impair the reliability of the death rates (particularly infant mortality rates) and that of the rate of natural increase. On the other hand, they are not of such magnitude as to effect seriously the estimates of total population.[9]

This may well have been the case. But then, if accepting the Supplement's estimate of 1.3 million Palestinian Arabs at the end of 1946 (the actual figure was most probably 5%-6% lower) the number of refugees could by no stretch of the imagination approximate the million mark for the simple reason that some 550,000-600,00 Arabs who lived in the mandatory districts of Samaria, Jerusalem, and Gaza (which subsequently became the West Bank and the Gaza Strip after their respective occupation by Transjordan and Egypt) remained in situ, while another 160,000 Arabs remained in, or returned to, Israel. This, in turn, puts the number of refugees at 540,000-590,000. Likewise, according to an extrapolation of the Village Statistics 1945, the non-Jewish population of the area that was to become Israeli territory at the end the war amounted, in April 1948, to some 696,000-726,800. Deducting Israel's 160,000-strong postwar Arab population from this figure would leave 536,000-566,800 refugees beyond Israel's frontiers.[10]

As can be seen below, my own calculations, based on British, Jewish, and to a lesser extent Arab, population figures of all identified rural and urban localities abandoned during the war, amounts to 583,000-609,000 refugees.