The Smoking Gun: Arab Immigration into Palest

[Erikl]

The Smoking Gun: Arab Immigration into Palestine, 1922-1931

by Fred M. Gottheil

Middle East Quarterly

Winter 2003, pp. 53-64

http://www.meforum.org/522/the-smoking-gun-arab-immigration-into-palestine

In deep antiquity, particularly in Egypt, the early civilization where the arts were most strongly developed, the visualization was aspective: that is the artist, working in paint or low-relief sculpture, conveyed to his two-dimensional surface not so much what he saw as what he knew was there.

- Paul Johnson, The Renaissance

Palestinian demography of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries has never been just a matter of numbers. It has always been—and consciously so—a front-line weapon used in a life-and-death struggle for nationhood among two peoples living in what used to be known as Palestine, each having competing ideologies and competing claims to territorial inheritance and rights to national sovereignty.

The problem with staking so much on so narrow a focus as past demography is that the data generated by demographers and others since the early nineteenth century are so lacking in precision that, in some matters of dispute concerning demography, "anyone's guess," as the saying goes, "is as good as any other." Or almost so. Of course, people still engaged in this high-stakes game of Palestinian demographic warfare will argue otherwise. With few exceptions, they insist that their own sources are superior, their own estimates more scientific, and their critics more ideological.

There are really two issues—or two battlefronts—associated with estimating Palestinian demography. The first has to do with sheer numbers, i.e., measuring over time the size of Palestine's total and subgroup populations. The second battlefront is considerably more contentious. It is estimating the percentages of population growth among subgroups attributed to natural increase and to immigration.

This immigration factor—or its absence—is paramount. If a significant percent of a population is composed of recent arrivals, then claims of historic tenancy are compromised. This explains why Arab Palestinians and others use the term "intruder" to describe the Jewish population of Palestine. The importance of Jewish immigration to the Jewish population of Palestine in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century is undisputed. But Jewish claims to territorial inheritance and to national sovereignty lay elsewhere, in history rather than demography.

On the other hand, for Arab Palestinians, the character of their demography is at the heart of their claim to territorial inheritance and national sovereignty. Their contention, seen by them as being beyond dispute, is that Arab Palestinians have deep and timeless roots in that geography and that their own immigration into that geography has at no time been consequential. To challenge that contention, then, is to challenge their self-selected criterion for sovereignty.

That is to say, the character of Arab Palestinian demography is the single most important piece of evidence supporting the Arab Palestinian claim to territorial inheritance and national sovereignty. The Arab Palestinian population—large or small, growing or not—is determined, they insist, strictly by birth and death rates among Arab Palestinians in Palestine, that is, by natural increase alone. This view of their population origin is associated with their still more insular view of "spatial stickiness," that is, their insistence as well that Arabs have not only been disinclined to migrate out of or into Palestine but also that Arab Palestinians have been disinclined to move from one region to another within Palestine.

Before examining these contentions and the competing Arab Palestinian population estimates offered by scholars in a variety of disciplines, e.g., economics, sociology, demography, and history, it may be useful to speculate on what anyone looking at late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Palestinian demography should expect to discover.

To read more, click here.

Many demagogues on this forum are trying to re-write history. It's time to fight back.

[Knight Of Shadows]

ahmmm ... "rewrite "

palestine was inhabited by arabs " BC "

tracing back the Cannan people who were tribes

spread out from the arabs peninsula to all over middle east

syria-lebanon-palestine and other countries

if you interested i could translate some " real " history

of arabic historians for you instead

am talking of arab ownership of the land since BC

these were forefathers and root of arabs

now you saying 1900 ?

[ExpandMyMind]

Hate to tell you this, but you won't prove anything by quoting that website. (It's like me quoting Palestine think tank or one of the other pro-Palestinian blog/websites).

You have the cheek to accuse me of using pro-Palestinian sources (which I have never posted) when I use Haaretz, The Guardian and other respected and reliable sources, then go on to use what is basically a right wing Zionist's blog?

What you fail to realise is that he is basing himself on Joan Peters' work, as do all deniers, when Arab demographics fit in exactly with the population growth.

Again, I will say to you for you keep refusing to read the actual material needed to understand the demographics - read the British documents regarding the matter. Instead of relying on rumour and hearsay. It's not very difficult, I have already posted some of the relevant material for you where you can see clearly that only a small, insignificant percentage of the Palestinian population were immigrants.

I would love for you to try to present this myth to any respected university in your own country - you would be laughed out of the halls. This nonsense can only fly when presented to people who haven't actually read any relevant material, but, carry on.

Edited October 5, 2010 by expandmymind

[Mr.United_Nations]

Hate to tell you this, but you won't prove anything by quoting that website. (It's like me quoting Palestine think tank or one of the other pro-Palestinian blog/websites).

You have the cheek to accuse me of using pro-Palestinian sources (which I have never posted) when I use Haaretz, The Guardian and other respected and reliable sources, then go on to use what is basically a right wing Zionist's blog?

What you fail to realise is that he is basing himself on Joan Peters' work, as do all deniers, when Arab demographics fit in exactly with the population growth.

Again, I will say to you for you keep refusing to read the actual material needed to understand the demographics - read the British documents regarding the matter. Instead of relying on rumour and hearsay. It's not very difficult, I have already posted some of the relevant material for you where you can see clearly that only a small, insignificant percentage of the Palestinian population were immigrants.

I would love for you to try to present this myth to any respected university in your own country - you would be laughed out of the halls. This nonsense can only fly when presented to people who haven't actually read any relevant material, but, carry on.

100% i agree

[questionmark]

Nice, and that proves that there was nobody living in Palestine prior to the 1920s or what?

The country was Arab under British mandate, which means that they got to decide who got in and who did not. As long as it was legal they were there first. And not even your think tank dares to question the legality of that (quite minor) emmigration.

The 1922 Census, under British mandate, of Palestine found that the Jews comprise 11% of the population (84,000 Jews and 673,000 Arabs and others). And no matter how much some want to dispute that it will not go away.

And before you come with your usual song, yes, I believe after the experience of the last centuries there was a need for a Jewish state. It was just pretty stupid to follow the bible thumpers in the election of the location. A nice graft out of Germany and Austria after WWII would have been far better.

[ExpandMyMind]

Nice, and that proves that there was nobody living in Palestine prior to the 1920s or what?

The country was Arab under British mandate, which means that they got to decide who got in and who did not. As long as it was legal they were there first. And not even your think tank dares to question the legality of that (quite minor) emmigration.

The 1922 Census, under British mandate, of Palestine found that the Jews comprise 11% of the population (84,000 Jews and 673,000 Arabs and others). And no matter how much some want to dispute that it will not go away.

And before you come with your usual song, yes, I believe after the experience of the last centuries there was a need for a Jewish state. It was just pretty stupid to follow the bible thumpers in the election of the location. A nice graft out of Germany and Austria after WWII would have been far better.

I agree with everything here. This is exactly what some here are trying to push on us. I refer erik, who after reading the Joan Peters myth of 600 pages has no excuses for not reading the comparatively small amount of material debunking it, to this thread.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=191655&pid=3598743&st=0entry3598743

Where he can educate himself.

I hadn't actually though of the idea of carving out a part of Austria and Germany. That actually makes a lot of sense, considering Jews already owned quite a bit of land in both countries. It should also be noted though, that they were offered land other than Palestine, but, as you mentioned, it wouldn't have fit in with their biblical prophesy (which I don't even think the average Jew was even all that fussed about in the first place).

I should also add that the Arab immigration into Palestine during the mandate years was documented and regulated just as much as the Jewish immigration. But erik can also read that in the source I provided above

And thanks, Pompey_lad.

[Erikl]

Ex, do you not find it at all disgusting that you two are amussing yourself on the possibility of eliminating a country off the face of the earth and transfer all it's inhabitants to the other side of the world? ofcourse not. It has been done to Jews hundreds of years. What's 130 years of resesttling a land means nowdays.

When will you ever stop with the lie that the country was Arabic. It wasn't. There was no country here. There were muslim tribes of many ethnicities. Heck, the Turks didn't even incorporated the entire land into one province - Israel was divided to three different provinces: one centered around Beirut, another one around Acre, and another one around Nablus. The entire land was part of the Damascus province. Even the Mamluks, before the Ottomans, incorporated the land under Damascus' administration. This is why for many years the Palestinians, as part of their pan-Arabist nationalism pre-1967, referred to themselves as Southern Syrians.

Claiming there was a sovereign state of Palestine with Jerusalem as it's capital is nonsense. Perhaps only for a brief period amid the 7th century when the legions of Muhammad occupied the land and decided Jerusalem to be the third most important religious site of Islam.

The name, Palestine, is foreign and the result of European occupation of the land and humiliation of it's native population - the Romans changed the name from Judea to Syria Palaestina. That's where the name comes from.

It seems you people simply accept anything the Palestinians claim. If tomorrow they'll claim that the Jews are actually aliens, you'll believe them as well.

[ExpandMyMind]

Ex, do you not find it at all disgusting that you two are amussing yourself on the possibility of eliminating a country off the face of the earth and transfer all it's inhabitants to the other side of the world?

We did no such thing. Both myself and Q are very much supporters of Israel's right to exist. We merely have stated that in retrospect, it may have been better - for the whole world - if an alternative to Palestine had been sought.

I in no way suggested, nor do I feel, that Israel should be 'moved' anywhere. This is paranoia from you.

The rest of your post was more of the 'we have a right to it because it was ours 2000 years ago'. This doesn't even nearly fly. Yes it was wrong that the Israelites/Hebrews were forced off the land, but this in no way makes it any more moral to sequester land belonging to another people 2000 years down the line. Before you start with the 'there was no Palestine country', this is only the case because one occupying force or another prevented this from happening - to this very day.

[Erikl]

Ex, how would you feel if someone was questioning Scotland's current existence. Perhaps the English would have preferred it if the Scots remained in Ireland, no? Anyhow this entire mood of abusing Israel's existence and how it should exist etc is idiotic, I'm afraid.

Israel is here, the Jews are here in their land, and any idea suggesting that they should become a minority in their own land, or should build there country elsewhere, is hogwash.

Before you start with the 'there was no Palestine country', this is only the case because one occupying force or another prevented this from happening - to this very day.

LOL! this is a complete revision of history. There was no national identity to the inhabitants. Heck, they were changed so many times over the last 2000 years, that it's ridiculous to claim they had something in common until the 19th-20th century. Palestinian nationalism grew up as a response to Zionism. Before that, they didn't view themselves as unique people, the European division of nations didn't exist here. This is pure Orientalism, covered by political correctness as a result of anti-colonialist sentiments among Europeans. Applying European point of views to history in places where it doesn't exist, is very petronising.

Palestinian national identity first claimed to be part of Greater Syria. Only when the French conquered Syria and the region called by the British was referred to as Palestine and was separated from Syria and Lebanon, they began creating a local nationalist movement. Modern Jewish nationalism began in the mid-1850s. Modern pan-Arabist nationalism began almost 60 years later. Not until the mid-1960s, after disappointing from Egypt and Jordanian occupation, did the Palestinians abandon the idea of pan-Arabist national movement. Their flag, however, is still a pan-Arabist flag, and identical to that of the Ba'ath Movement in Syria.

The concept of Palestine was so vague during Ottoman periods, as I've written here before, that anyone can claim anything is Palestine. This is why referring to "historical Palestine" as if it was a country by it's own, is pointless. The entire concept is less than 60 years old, and was created as a tool against Israel. The fact that it later on got it's own life, is the result of Arab lack of unity around virtually anything, other than their hatred to Israel and the West.

Edited October 6, 2010 by Erikl

[Mr.United_Nations]

Remmber countries didnt exist 2,000 years ago, only states or city states we call them or proviences.

The boundaries of Palestine have varied throughout history.[24][25] Prior to its being named Palestine, Ancient Egyptian texts (c. 14 century BCE) called the entire coastal area along the Mediterranean Sea between modern Egypt and Turkey R-t-n-u (conventionally Retjenu). Retjenu was subdivided into three regions and the southern region, Djahy, shared approximately the same boundaries as Canaan, or modern-day Israel and the Palestinian territories, though including also Syria.[26]

So there Palestine was there way before any Jes turned up.

So theMy link

[Guest]

Ex, how would you feel if someone was questioning Scotland's current existence. Perhaps the English would have preferred it if the Scots remained in Ireland, no? Anyhow this entire mood of abusing Israel's existence and how it should exist etc is idiotic, I'm afraid.

Israel is here, the Jews are here in their land, and any idea suggesting that they should become a minority in their own land, or should build there country elsewhere, is hogwash.

LOL! this is a complete revision of history. There was no national identity to the inhabitants. Heck, they were changed so many times over the last 2000 years, that it's ridiculous to claim they had something in common until the 19th-20th century. Palestinian nationalism grew up as a response to Zionism. Before that, they didn't view themselves as unique people, the European division of nations didn't exist here. This is pure Orientalism, covered by political correctness as a result of anti-colonialist sentiments among Europeans. Applying European point of views to history in places where it doesn't exist, is very petronising.

Palestinian national identity first claimed to be part of Greater Syria. Only when the French conquered Syria and the region called by the British was referred to as Palestine and was separated from Syria and Lebanon, they began creating a local nationalist movement. Modern Jewish nationalism began in the mid-1850s. Modern pan-Arabist nationalism began almost 60 years later. Not until the mid-1960s, after disappointing from Egypt and Jordanian occupation, did the Palestinians abandon the idea of pan-Arabist national movement. Their flag, however, is still a pan-Arabist flag, and identical to that of the Ba'ath Movement in Syria.

The concept of Palestine was so vague during Ottoman periods, as I've written here before, that anyone can claim anything is Palestine. This is why referring to "historical Palestine" as if it was a country by it's own, is pointless. The entire concept is less than 60 years old, and was created as a tool against Israel. The fact that it later on got it's own life, is the result of Arab lack of unity around virtually anything, other than their hatred to Israel and the West.

It was a province of a sovereign state with an indigenous population of 9:1 of ethnic Arabs to ethnic Jews. No amount of mealy mouthed words will change that basic fact. I am very grateful that Questionmark has clarified the actual statistics, because your distortions had started to make me question my understanding - Cheers Q.

Israel stole the lands of the indigenous population of which Jews were a tiny minority - we have to live with the consequences of that, but you seem unable to even acknowledge it.

You seem to be living in deep denial. The first step in any recovery program is to acknowledge your problem behaviour - the world is waiting.

Br Cornelius

Edited October 6, 2010 by Guest

[questionmark]

It was a province of a sovereign state with an indigenous population of 9:1 of ethnic Arabs to ethnic Jews. No amount of mealy mouthed words will change that basic fact. I am very grateful that Questionmark has clarified the actual statistics, because your distortions had started to make me question my understanding - Cheers Q.

Israel stole the lands of the indigenous population of which Jews were a tiny minority - we have to live with the consequences of that, but you seem unable to even acknowledge it.

You seem to be living in deep denial. The first step in any recovery program is to acknowledge your problem behaviour - the world is waiting.

Br Cornelius

Where I don't agree with the classifications, they were all Arab, some Muslim, some Christian and some Jews besides a tiny minority of other faiths.

[questionmark]

Ex, how would you feel if someone was questioning Scotland's current existence. Perhaps the English would have preferred it if the Scots remained in Ireland, no? Anyhow this entire mood of abusing Israel's existence and how it should exist etc is idiotic, I'm afraid.

Nobody abuses Israel's existence, but Israel is not going to get an inch more than agreed in '48. That is what you and the bunkerheads don't seem to get.

In hindsight it was a very stupid idea to place it where it is, but it is too late to remedy that. If the country will ever be viable is another question. But that is what you get and nothing else.

[Mr.United_Nations]

I really think you need to stop supporting your country tbh, they are no good for everyone, America uses Israel as a foothold in the middle east, nothing more.

[Knight Of Shadows]

The name, Palestine, is foreign and the result of European occupation of the land and humiliation of it's native population - the Romans changed the name from Judea to Syria Palaestina. That's where the name comes from.

let me correct you here

Palestine came from the name of the tribe who was living in mountain

who later took over the city from the canaan people

later on the land were named after them

that's where the name came from not as you mentioned above

[Corp]

I really think you need to stop supporting your country tbh, they are no good for everyone, America uses Israel as a foothold in the middle east, nothing more.

Bit of a slap in the face to call someone's country nothing more than a puppet. I think Israel is a bit more than that. They've done a lot of crappy stuff but not enough to have you call on Erikl to ditch his country.

Also I do believe the Romans are the ones who caused the Palestian name to stick. The area was known as Judea until the Jews revolted causing the Romans to "resettle" its people. Seems after the Bar Kokhba revolt Hadrian changed the name, taking it after the Philistines. Hard to bounce back after you lose 580,000 people if Cassius Dio can be believed.

[Erikl]

let me correct you here

Palestine came from the name of the tribe who was living in mountain

who later took over the city from the canaan people

later on the land were named after them

that's where the name came from not as you mentioned above

Erm, nope. Just as me and Corp said - the Romans renamed it after the Philistines, a coalition of Greek people who conquered the shores of Canaan back in the 13th century BC, establishing the cities of Jaffa, Ashkelon, Ashdod and Gaza, and were the arch-nemesis of the Israelites according to our holy scriptures. They disappeared as a people after the Babylonians conquered the land in the 6th century BC. The Romans, who were quite familiar with the Old Testament, sought to hurt and punish the Jews by changing the name of the land to that of their worst biblical enemies.

[Knight Of Shadows]

actually that's what the west histories claims

and never they been sure they " suggest " that those people

were from greek roots

based on our version of it they lived in the canaan cities and

adopted their culture ect ect .. deep topic

[questionmark]

actually that's what the west histories claims

and never they been sure they " suggest " that those people

were from greek roots

based on our version of it they lived in the canaan cities and

adopted their culture ect ect .. deep topic

It does not matter what you want to m******** your brain about, history is a science of demonstrable facts by documentation.

[Knight Of Shadows]

explain more i didn't get you

[questionmark]

explain more i didn't get you

There is no West history and no East history, there only is a history based on documented facts. And when it comes to older times what is taught in the Middle East as history is about as real as the tales of 1001 nights.

[Knight Of Shadows]

hmmmm you know those " documented " facts you talking about

mostly based on ancient language and stuff

it can be easily translated " wrong "

if you really wanna play this way ... the west in old times

used to come to the middle east to learn about knowledge .. so eat that

[questionmark]

hmmmm you know those " documented " facts you talking about

mostly based on ancient language and stuff

it can be easily translated " wrong "

if you really wanna play this way ... the west in old times

used to come to the middle east to learn about knowledge .. so eat that

Right, we know: it is only right the way I translate it and I translate it as I need it.

B u l l s h i t.

[Knight Of Shadows]

yeah yeah mistakes are common intentionally and not intentionally

you just refused the " well documented " fact of the west

learning alot of knowledge from the east in the old times

this proves your ill-equipped to discuss history

W e l c o m e T o R e a l i t y

[MichaelW]

Right, here's something you should read: The Philistines

Quotes from that site:

The oldest literature about the Philistines points to Crete as their original home. This idea is strengthened by the ancient name of the Philistine city of Gaza: Minoah; the same name was given to several trade stations started from Crete.

The Philistines are viewed as participants in the great migration of the period round 1200 B.C., which caused the fall of so many empires. Belonging to the Sea Peoples, they came from the North and, possibly through Crete or (much more likely) Cyprus, went to the South, where they caused devastation but also established a new culture. Philistine pottery, architecture, military power, and certain similarities with Homer's Greek heroes together point to Mycenaean Greece as their homeland.

So, maybe Knight should read this before continuing with his rants.

Edited October 7, 2010 by MichaelW