Christians for Zion recently updated their site which included comment moderation. On two occasions now i have attempted to comment regarding sources for the following claim by Chris proudlove,


“From the 13th century onwards half the Jews ever born have been viciously slaughtered,…”


Only to discover that my question regarding sources for the claim were not deemed fit for moderation. 


Chris Proudlove has also made a similar claim in the past which he claims as fact even though the person who made the initial claim [David Pawson] offered no evidence or sources to back up the claim,


“HALF of Jews born in the last 800 years have been murdered. A third of Jews born in the last 80 years have been murdered.

When these horrible facts were uttered by international Bible teacher David Pawson at the 2012 Northern Conference of the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem a wave of revulsion swept over the congregation.”


When i previously asked if Chris could point me in the direction of where i might find the evidence he replied,


“There are plenty of books outlining European pogroms against Jews from the Crusades onwards, including England, but it is the first time I’ve heard anyone stating a definite total. It is known that millions of Jews lost their lives in 19th century Russia. Indeed, this persecution sparked a mass move of Jews to the Holy Land. Pawson did not elaborate but I suspect the information might be contained in a forthcoming book. Being a graduate scientist, Pawson is not a man to pluck figures out of the air. I suggest you contact the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem or Pawson himself.”


So it appears Chris Proudlove is regurgitating this claim even though he has no evidence to back it up and that makes me wonder why he would make such a claim on the Christians for Zion website….and why wont they post up my comment regarding sources? 


My best guess is that they don’t like their propaganda and lies exposed. I know this to be true as previously i’ve had comments removed during a debate between Chris and myself regarding the San Remo treaty/Mandate for Palestine.


It’s all very surreal really as there is genuine anti semitic comments on their site which have never been removed….


What are you trying to hide, guys?









Filed under Uncategorized

34 responses to “Censorship?

  1. Christopher Proudlove

    I have heard David Pawson speak on many occasions, have acquired most of his books, and listen to him regularly on Christian radio stations. He is most meticulous in researching facts as befits an M.A. and B.Sc. which is why people can trust his judgements.
    I’ve put Trevor’s view about the slaughter of Jews to Mr Pawson and he assures me that he has the documentary evidence to prove his facts are correct.

  2. Did Mr Pawson furnish you with the “documentary evidence”

    If he did can you point me in the direction of this evidence?

    Btw, it’s nice of you to join us here.

    Ps in your ongoing challenge with sabeel and the congleton chronicle, it would be helpful if you also posted up the full text of the replies from those you’re debating with as it’s very, very difficult to make a judgement call on who is right and who is wrong when all we can see is a small part of the information.

  3. Christopher Proudlove

    I spoke to the Reverend David Pawson at the annual conference (north) of the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem. Obviously he did not have the information to hand. He is known amongst his contemporaries as being meticulous in reporting facts. I trust him to be telling the truth. He would not soil his immense international reputation by telling porkies. You will have to approach Mr Pawson for the definitive answer you seek.
    Among the worst incidents in England were the deaths of more than 150 Jews in Clifford’s Tower, York, in 1190; 57 Jews massacred in Bury St Edmonds in the same year; 400 Jews massacred in London on Palm Sunday 1263, 290 Jews hanged in the London Tower in 1278. In 1290 all Jews were ordered out of England, the first genbeal expulsion of Jews from any country in mediaeval Europe. It was in Norwich in 1144 that the blood libel surfaced; that Jews murdered Gentile children to use their blood in Passover celebrations. This lie is still being taught in Arab countries today.

  4. Christopher Proudlove

    David Pawson is on Facebook, Trevor. You can contact him there.

  5. “I spoke to the Reverend David Pawson at the annual conference (north) of the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem. Obviously he did not have the information to hand.”

    Thus proving my point that you have claimed as “fact” that which you don’t have any “facts” for

    Btw i’ve made repeated attemts on twitter to get Mr Pawson to answer my query….As of yet no reply has been forthcoming.

    “David Pawson is on Facebook, Trevor. You can contact him there.”

    Why don’t you contact him and post his reply here?

  6. Christopher Proudlove

    Mr Pawson probably knows of your reputation, Trevor, and has the sense to ignore you, as does Mike Fryer. People say I should stop answering you as your arguments go round and round. I trust David Pawson. He is a man of international reputation. What facts have you to prove that Mr Pawson is wrong? Are you not aware that whever the Jews of gone in the Diaspora they have not merely been victims of anti-Semitism but have been murdered just because they have been born Jews. How can you live with yourself for the way in which you are attempting to de-legitimise Israel. Jews wrote our Bible on which our Western civilisation is based. Now, countries are going down the secular humanism route, embracing things that are shameful. Did you know there are animal brothels in Germany where people can sate their bestiality? Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

  7. Christopher Proudlove

    Giving all the facts and figures would take a lot of time. Perhaps Mr Pawson is making better use of his time by not answering Trevor who, as far as I know, is not a stellar name in academia.

  8. “Mr Pawson probably knows of your reputation, Trevor, and has the sense to ignore you, as does Mike Fryer.”

    Mike Fryer ignores me because he knows his Hasbara will be quickly shredded like when he says such nonsense as,

    “I am sorry to read such nonsense from you regarding Zionists and Israel ethnically cleansing anyone.”

    He knows fine well that his absurd claim that “Israel ethnically cleansed no one” would be swiftly dispelled as it is a known fact that Israel did ethnically cleanse Palestinian villages. He also spouts the same nonsense as you about San Remo which deligitimises the Jewish state of Israel but you are both so blinkered that you can’t see this is the case.

    As for Mr Pawson’s claim. Yes, we know as fact that Jews have been persecuted mercilessly down the ages but to claim that half of all Jews have been murderd since 1212 is stretching it a bit…don’t you think?

    Why do i think this? Because in your blog you also claim,

    “A third of Jews born in the last 80 years have been murdered.”

    Now that figure is easily believable and provable but it also means that in the previous 720 years more than 50% of all Jews were murdered. Tell me how can that be when the means for mass murder on such a large scale at that time were not invented?

    Whatever way you look at it the point of my blog stands….You posted up as fact that to which you have no facts.

  9. Christopher Proudlove

    For you to prove David Pawson is wrong, Trevor, you will have to give a figure yourself. We are waiting …
    Israel is guilty of ethinic cleansing………. it ordered 10,000Jews to quit Gush Katif, in the Gaza Strip. The IDF forcibly removed those who would not leave.

  10. Christopher Proudlove


  11. You really are a bizarre individual.

    Are you claiming that Israel never ethnically cleansed Arabs?

  12. Christopher Proudlove

    Just joshing, Trevor! It is a fact that Arab villages were cleared during the 1948 War of Independence. The clearance was aided by Arab radio broadcasts. Muslims were urged to get out of the way because the invading armies of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq etc were going to drive all Jews in to the sea. Had the neighbouring countries not attacked the nascent state of Israel everybody would have been better off.

  13. Christopher Proudlove

    What do have have to say to Melanie Phillips’ view on the San Remo Treaty, Trevor? Her husband Joshua Rosenburg is the legal correspondent of the Daily Telegraph who was formerly employed by the BBC. Joshua is a law graduate. No doubt he was able to give guidance on the legal issues

  14. Christopher Proudlove

    by Ted Belman
    Background: The Middle East was a part of the Ottoman Empire, which had ruled it some 400 years when World War I broke out. The Ottomans allied themselves with Germany. And so it was that, when the war ended, the Ottomans had lost their land. As part of the readjustments, the map of the huge area we call the Middle East was reconfigured. The original plan was to create a Jewish state in what the British called Mandatory Palestine (some 45,000 square miles on both sides of the Jordan river) and an Arab state in the rest of the region. In 1922, the British put the Hashemite family in charge of “administering” the area on the east side of the Jordan — some 78% of the land destined to be the Jewish state — leaving the Jews with some 8,840 square miles, 1/10 of 1% of the area of the Middle East, for a future homeland. The land holdings of the 22 Arab League countries, in contrast, is 6,145,389 square miles.
    1. According to international law, the Jewish people are the sole beneficiary of Self-Determination in the land that was Mandatory Palestine. The rights of the Jewish People to Palestine are enshrined in three legally binding international treaties. These rights have not expired and are still in full force and effect. [1]
    The process began at San Remo, Italy, when the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I — Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan — agreed to create a Jewish national home [*] in what is now the Land of Israel.
    1. The 1920 San Remo Resolution
    This was passed by the San Remo Supreme Council. This council was given the power of disposition by the Great Powers and was convened for the purpose of dividing what was the Ottoman Empire, i.e, redrawing the borders of the Middle East and giving its land to its original inhabitants.
    The relevant resolution reads as follows:
    “The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust… the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory [authority that] will be responsible for putting into effect the [Balfour] declaration… in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”
    The San Remo Resolution also bases itself on Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which declares that it is “a sacred trust of civilization” to provide for the well-being and development of colonies and territories whose inhabitants are “not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world.” Specifically, a resolution was formulated to create a Mandate to form a Jewish national home in Palestine.
    Professor Jacques Gauthier wrote that the San Remo treaty specifically notes that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” – but says nothing about any “political” rights of the Arabs living there.[2]
    2. The 1922 Mandate for Palestine
    The League of Nations’ resolution creating the Palestine Mandate included the following significant clause: “Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” No such recognition of Arab rights in Palestine was granted.
    3. The 1924 Anglo-American Convention on Palestine.
    The United States of America ratified a treaty with the British Government known as the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924, which included by reference the aforementioned Balfour Declaration and includes, verbatim, the full text of the Mandate for Palestine.
    “Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 2nd of November 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people…”
    The United States of America is legally bound to the principles contained in the “Balfour Declaration” and the “Mandate for Palestine.”
    2. The British Mandatory was not a sovereign. All its rights and obligations relating to Palestine, emanated from the Mandate of Palestine. The Mandatory was a trustee for the League of Nations, and it was not given the power to take any steps which violated the terms of the Mandate. It could not change the terms of the Mandate at its pleasure, as it did in the following two cases:
    1. Ceding 77.5 % of Palestine to Trans Jordan (in 1922)
    2. Ceding the Golan to Syria (in 1923)
    3. The Mandatory violated article 5 & article 27 of the Mandate when it ceded 77.5% of Palestine to TransJordan and the Golan to Syria:
    ART. 5. “The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.”
    ART. 27: The Mandatory had no right to amend the Mandate terms without the full consent of the League of Nations or its Mandates Commission.
    4. In the 1924 Anglo American Convention the U.S. agreed to support Great Britain as a Mandatory so long as the Mandatory abided by the San Remo Resolution. The sole purpose of the Resolution regarding Palestine was:
    1. Drawing the borders of Palestine
    2. Reconstituting Palestine as a National Homeland for the Jewish People worldwide
    3. Recognizing the Jewish People’s historical connection to the land
    There was not even one word in the Mandate or the Anglo American convention about creating an Arab land in Palestine.
    In November 2009, the Office for Israeli Constitutional Law (OFICL), a non-governmental legal action organization, sent a letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, warning that by labeling Jewish settlements in the West Bank illegal, she is violating international law, as well as American law. OFICL directer Mark Kaplan said:
    “The mandate expired in 1948 when Israel got its independence, but the American-Anglo convention was a treaty that was connected to the mandate. Treaties themselves have no statute of limitations, so their rights go on ad infinitum.”
    5. The Lodge-Fish Resolution of September 21, 1922, was a Joint Resolution passed by both houses of the U.S. Congress and signed by President Warren Harding, endorsing the Balfour Declaration with slight variations. This made the text of the Joint Resolution part of the law of the United States until this very day.
    “Resolved by the Senate and House of representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the United states of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national Home for the Jewish people…”
    confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine — anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea:
    6. Under American Law when a joint resolution is passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives in an identical form and then signed by the President, it becomes the Law of the U.S.
    7. Both the Lodge-Fish Resolution and the Anglo American Convention underwent the above noted process (see point 6). Therefore reconstituting Palestine as a National Homeland for the Jewish People worldwide and recognizing their historical connection to the land became part of US LAW.
    Any attempt to negate the Jewish people’s right to Palestine — Eretz-Israel — and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is an actionable infringement of both international law and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution), which dictates that Treaties “shall be the supreme Law of the Land”.
    8. The 1924 Anglo American Convention on Palestine included the whole text of the Palestine Mandate. The Palestine Mandate included the Balfour declaration preamble committing to reconstitute Palestine as a National homeland for the Jewish People worldwide and to recognize their historical connection to the land. It did not mention anything about creating an Arab State in Palestine. The Mandate explicitly prohibited ceding any land in Palestine to any foreign powers or changing the terms of the Mandate without the League’s expressed permission. That permission had to be unanimously passed by all members. That never occurred.[3]
    9. The significance of the above (see #8) is that no decision made by the US or Britain, may be in conflict with the terms of the Mandate or the Anglo American Convention. France, Italy and Japan sat on the San Remo Supreme Council – along with the US and Britain – approving the San Remo decision. After the Supreme Council approved the San Remo decision, the resolution was further approved by the League of Nations and its 51 members. This resolution became a binding international Treaty. The Treaty became Res Judicata. Consequently all the above noted countries are bound by their own approval. Thus they are prevented from changing their approval without Israel’s consent.
    10. No decision, policy or measure taken by subsequent American administrations may be in conflict with the Terms of the Palestine Mandate. (The sole purpose of the Mandate was-to reconstitute Palestine as a national homeland for the Jewish People world-wide and recognize their historical connection with the land.) Under the Doctrine of Estoppels the US is estopped from making policies, taking any steps, measures, spending any monies on policies, which run contrary to its covenants and undertaking under the Anglo-American Convention of 1924, because among other things they are violating US Law.
    11. Both their Excellencies, the Emir Faisal and Abdullah approved the League of Nations decisions. At different points in history, Emir Faisal, in an agreement with Weitzman, agreed to support the Zionist claim on both sides of the Jordan river and later Abdullah, agreed with Churchill to support the Zionist claim to the territory from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean, including Judea and Samaria and Gaza, and the Golan Heights. The Supreme Council did not want to approve the final borders of Palestine on both sides of the Jordan until they had the approval of Emir Feisal.[4]
    12. All rights emanating from the three international treaties were approved by the League of Nations and inherited by the United Nations. They did not expire. The United Nations had no right to vary them.
    The UN has no right to pass a resolution which ran contrary to an existing earlier decision/ resolution on its books.
    The UN or Britain are not sovereigns and had no right to change borders at its pleasure.
    The same Supreme Council that drew the borders for Iraq Syria and Lebanon, gave Israel the right to its borders from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. This was approved by the League, and its members: Britain, France, Japan and Italy. They have no right to vary that which they had approved.
    13. The General Assembly does not have the right to create enforceable resolutions or borders. So even if the Arabs had accepted the Green Line [the armistice lines after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war], these borders would not have been legally enforceable.
    14. The Partition Plan of 1947 only demarcated the cease fire lines. It had no binding legal force.
    • It was not approved by the Arabs. In order for the Green Line to have had any sort of legal significance that approval would have been necessary at the very least;
    • The General Assembly has no power to change borders. Therefore its decision or advice was insignificant from a legal perspective.
    • The UN has no power to vary an existing valid international treaty which the League of Nations – its predecessor – had approved. (Res Judicata). The UN inherited from the League of Nations the granting to Israel of the lands between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River.
    • The UN has no power to draw new agreements which run contrary to existing valid International Agreements or treaties which it had inherited from its predecessor, the League of Nations.
    • No borders decided by the San Remo Conference and approved by the League of Nations, save those of Israel, were ever challenged or changed;
    • In 1923 Britain – the Mandatory and Trustee of the Palestine Mandate of 1922, and of the British American Convention of 1924 – contrary to the explicit terms of the Mandate, ceded the Golan to Syria.[5]
    “This treaty which was concluded by the principal powers, in effect, as representative of the League of Nations, is binding on the League, particularly after it approved it. The League cannot therefore change the mandate provisions. (Nor, of course, does the Mandatory have that right)”[6]
    OFICL chairman Michael Snidecor has stated, “The General Assembly has no authority to create countries or change borders. The UN partition plan [1967] was just that — a plan.”
    Significant precedents:
    1. The Vienna decision on treaties: According to Howard Grief:
    Rights gained from Mandates don’t cease at the expiration of the Mandate
    The principle of law that rights once granted or recognized under a treaty or other legal instrument do not expire with the expiration of that treaty or instrument is now codified in article 70(1)(b) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (the Treaty on Treaties). This article states that “unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree, the termination of a treaty… does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination”.
    As a result, Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel remain in full force today under international law.
    The South Africa decision on Mandates basically says the same thing: rights gained by a country through a mandate don’t expire at the expiration of the mandate.[7]
    Article 80 of The UN charter: No right gained by a country through a mandate will expire as a result of the expiration of the mandate.
    End Notes
    [*] Jewish National Home and “homeland for the Jewish people” were a less in-your-face way of saying “Jewish State.”
    [1] See, for example, this, this, this, this and this, for starters. Other articles can be retrieved by googling for “Howard Grief” and/or “Yoram Shifftan”.
    OFICL chairman Mark Kaplan has pointed out that IDF’s presence in the West Bank has added to this misconception of illegal activity.
    “Israel chose to adopt a policy of military rule in 1967, which makes it smell of occupation. And the world says it is illegal occupation because of all the propaganda that’s been out there. Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria does not qualify as an occupation under international law because of the Anglo-American Convention — and if you look at the Hague and Geneva conventions.”
    (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid= 1259243026960&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull).
    [2] Jacques Gauthier, Thesis Defense, http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2007/12/02/an-e-mail-that-is-about-jacques- gauthiers-phd-dissertation-on-the-legal-status-of-jerusalem-an- important-document-to-be-read-by-the-annapolis-process-and-the-un-lawyers/,
    [3] Howard Grief, The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law: A Treatise on Jewish Sovereignty over the Land of Israel, pg 204
    [4] Jacques Gauthier re: minutes of San Remo Conference. http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2007/11/jerusalem-is-jewish-issue.html
    [5] Joan Peters, From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine, pg 236.
    [6] Jacques Gauthier, Thesis, pg 404.
    [7] Jacques Gauthier. http://www.globalpolitician.com/26079-israel-west-bank-settlements
    Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. He now lives in Jerusalem. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com

  15. “The clearance was aided by Arab radio broadcasts.”

    Proof please?

    As for MAD MEL,


  16. Churchill White Paper [1922]: “The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty’s Government on 2 November 1917.” Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become “as Jewish as England is English.” His Majesty’s Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded “in PalestineIn this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims “the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development”‘. ‘it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty’s Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re-affirmed by the Conference of the Principal Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sèvres, is not susceptible of change.’ ‘During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000… it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.’ ‘This, then, is the interpretation which His Majesty’s Government place upon the Declaration of 1917, and, so understood, the Secretary of State is of opinion that it does not contain or imply anything which need cause either alarm to the Arab population of Palestine or disappointment to the Jews.’ MacDonald White Paper [1939]: Section I. The Constitution: It stated that with over 450,000 Jews having now settled in the mandate, the Balfour Declaration about “a national home for the Jewish people” had been met and called for an independent Palestine established within 10 years, governed jointly by Arabs and Jews: His Majesty’s Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. […] His Majesty’s Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.” ‘The objective of His Majesty’s Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. [..] The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.’ Section II. Immigration: “…After the period of five years, no further Jewish immigration will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it.” Article 7. The British Mandate For Palestine “The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine”. “Before we turn to the content of the San Remo document, let us recall what the International Court of Justice, the supreme judicial body in the international system, concluded about the legal status of the territories occupied in 1967 (including East Jerusalem) after exhaustive analysis of the matter: 78. The Court would observe that, under customary international law as reflected (see paragraph 89 below) in Article 42 of the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907 (hereinafter “the Hague Regulations of 1907″), territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, paragraph 78 (emphasis added). Put briefly, under the basic international legal principle of the “inadmissibility of territorial acquisition by war”, Israel has no claim to sovereignty over any of the territories occupied in the 1967 war. Those territories – the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem – are and remain “occupied territories”. The Court based this conclusion on an exhaustive study of the relevant legal framework, including foundational documents of international humanitarian law such as the Hague Regulations of 1907, the General Assembly’s Partition Resolution (on the strength of which the State of Israel was founded), and various Security Council resolutions calling for the withdrawal from the occupied territories (UNSC 242) and declaring “totally invalid” “all legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel to change the status of the: City of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties, transfer of populations and legislation aimed at the incorporation of the occupied section […]” (UNSC 298). CAMERA and Gauthier claim that the San Remo document negates all this, and gives Israel full title not only to the territory within Israel’s recognised (pre-June 1967) borders, but to the territory occupied in the 1967 war. If this is true, then the entire international legal consensus on the status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory is dead wrong. This, of course, raises the question: Is it true? In order to answer this question, two fairly obvious requirements must be met: (a) The San Remo document must actually grant sovereignty to Israel (or, given that Israel would not exist for another 28 years, to a “Jewish state” to be created on the entire territory of Mandatory Palestine); and (b) It must continue to be valid and applicable, meaning that any and all subsequent enactments must either not concern the subject matter of the San Remo document, or, if related, not conflict with it (the “last-in-time” principle – lex posterior derogat priori). Note that (b) is a subsidiary question. If the San Remo document does not actually grant sovereignty over the territory in question to Israel or a future “Jewish state”, then its continuing vitality is of no relevance to whether Israel has any claim to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Thus, we must first turn to the relevant provisions of the San Remo document: (a) To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the proces-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine; this undertaking not to refer to the question of the religious protectorate of France, which had been settled earlier in the previous afternoon by the undertaking given by the French Government that they recognized this protectorate as being at an end. (b) that the terms of the Mandates Article should be as follows: […] The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. In other words, the San Remo document calls for the implementation of the Balfour Declaration, which called for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, and twice provides that the “rights hitherto enjoyed”/”civil and religious rights” shall in no way be impaired by the establishment of this “national home”. There is no reference to a “Jewish state”, nor any transfer of sovereignty to “the Jewish people” or to anyone else, merely a “national home” for Jews “in Palestine”. Even more fatally to Gauthier’s claims, the San Remo document makes no determination whatsoever as to boundaries, only noting that boundaries are to be determined on some later date by the Principal Allied Powers. When I raised these fairly obvious issues on the Facebook event page set up by CAMERA Regional Coordinator, attorney Talia Shulman Gold, she claimed that “national home” and “state” were the same thing: “Just what do you think establishing a “national home” meant anyway, Elise[1]?” While this assertion may have some superficial appeal owing to the peculiarity of the phrase “national home”, there remains an obvious problem. The term “state” was in common use at the time that the San Remo document was signed. The drafters of the document can be reasonably assumed to have been aware of the term “state” and of its meaning. And yet, they did not use the term “state” to describe what they were creating for “the Jewish people” in Palestine, preferring the term “national home”. If they had intended to establish a legal basis for the creation of a “Jewish state”, they could quite simply have referred to “the establishment in Palestine of a state for the Jewish people”. Instead, they specifically chose to use a different term. To claim, as Shulman Gold has (and Gauthier must), that the drafters actually meant “state” is to claim that they did not really mean what they wrote. Even if we were to accept, for the sake of argument, that it is permissible to read “state” where “national home” is written, the central claim – that the San Remo document gives Israel full sovereignty over the entirety of Mandatory Palestine, including the Occupied Palestinian Territory – runs into an even more serious problem: The San Remo document makes no determination at all with regard to boundaries, except to provide that “the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, [is entrusted] to a Mandatory” (emphasis added). The Principal Allied Powers left the determination of the boundaries of Palestine for a later date. In other words, the Gauthier-CAMERA claim that the San Remo Resolution made a final and irrevocable determination that the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem should be contained within the boundaries of the State of Israel is a cynical fraud. Israel’s lawful boundaries are the internationally recognised, pre-June 1967 boundaries, and the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem are – as was authoritatively reaffirmed by the International Court of Justice – Occupied Palestinian Territory. A Hoax Worthy of Joan Peters It is worth noting that this blatant misrepresentation of the content and legal status of the San Remo Resolution is not the only fraud promoted by the “Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America”. CAMERA’s “suggested book list” includes such lowlights of American intellectual life as Joan Peters’ discredited From Time Immemorial, which grossly falsified archival documents in an effort to claim that Palestine was uninhabited on the eve of Zionist colonisation, and Alan Dershowitz’ The Case for Israel, which plagiarises numerous passages from From Time Immemorial, and embellishes on it with further absurdities. Why would an organisation ostensibly dedicated to “accuracy” in media reporting promote a long-since-exposed hoax like From Time Immemorial (absurdly claiming that “Joan Peters dispels the myth of Zionist dispossession of “native” arabs [sic] in Palestine, drawing on rarely examined archives and statistics. She makes a credible case for Jewish indigenous habitation lasting thousands of years; a groundbreaking study necessary to any discussion of the current conflict in the region.”) and a phantasmagorical distortion of the San Remo Resolution and the legal status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory? Obviously, these stories aren’t being promoted for their “accuracy”, so there must be some other motive. What goal could CAMERA be pursuing by promoting a work that falsely claims that Palestine was uninhabited prior to Zionist colonisation, and that an obscure 1920 document grants Israel full title to the Occupied Palestinian Territory? Simple: Promoting works such as these provides a pretext under which moral and legal objections to the constant violations of Palestinian rights by the US and Israel – from the ethnic cleansing (“Nakba”) of 1948 to the 1967 occupation and the displacement of Palestinians through state-subsidised illegal settlements – can be dismissed. It provides rhetorical cover for some of Israel’s most severe crimes.” “The object of Zionism is to establish for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law.” ..It has been said and is still being obstinately repeated by anti-Zionists again and again, that Zionism aims at the creation of an independent “Jewish State” But this is fallacious. The “Jewish State” was never part of the Zionist programme. The Jewish State was the title of Herzl’s first pamphlet, which had the supreme merit of forcing people to think. This pamphlet was followed by the first Zionist Congress, which accepted the Basle programme – the only programme in existence.” Nahum Sokolow, Zionist representative at the Paris peace conference. From article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations “…Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory”. “Jordan was part of the Palestine Mandate for a mere eight months, from July 1920 to March 1921. Even that is vitiated by two facts: the League of Nations formally bestowed the mandatory responsibility on Great Britain only in July 1922, making the eight month period legally irrelevant; and the British disposed of almost no authority in Transjordan during those months when they theoretically held it as part of Palestine” Or as Dean Brown observes, “Jordan is Palestine only in the sense that Nebraska, which was part of the Louisiana Purchase, is still Louisiana.” MEMORANDUM BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS. [Lord Curzon]. A FINAL decision about Mandates A is required. The Assembly of the League of Nations is concerned about their submission to the Council, and will probably not allow the gathering at Geneva to come to an end without a decision being taken on the point. It is understood that the Council of the League is likely to hold a meeting while at Geneva to consider the.se Mandates, and it has been informed that they will be submitted without further delay. The Mandates concerned are those for Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine. The French Mandate for Syria is drawn on the same lines as ours for Mesopotamia, though not actually identical with it. There is nothing in it to which we desire to object. The Mandate for Mesopotamia has passed through several stages, tending in each case to further simplification. It has bemi shown to, and approved by, the French and Italian Governments, to whom we were under a pledge at San Remo to submit it In its last printed form this Mandate was approved by the Cabinet a few weeks ago . . . As regards the Palestine Mandate, this Mandate also has passed through several revises. When it was first shown to the French Government it at once excited their vehement criticisms on the ground of its almost exclusively Zionist complexion and of the manner in which the interests and rights of the Arab majority (amounting to about nine-tenths of the population) were ignored. The Italian Government expressed similar apprehensions. It was felt that this would constitute a very serious, and possibly a fatal, objection when the Mandate came ultimately before the Council of the League. The Mandate, therefore, was largely rewritten, and finally received their assent. It was also considered by an Inter-Departmental Conference here, in which the Foreign Office, Board of Trade, War Office and India Office were represented, and which passed the final draft. In the course of these discussions strong objection was taken to a statement which had been inserted in the Preamble of the first draft to the following effect:— ” Recognising the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the claim which this gives them to reconstitute Palestine as their National Home.” 367 [4996] It was pointed out (1) that, while the Powers had unquestionably recognised the historical connection of the Jews with Palestine by their formal acceptance of the Balfour Declaration and their textual incorporation of it in the Turkish Peace Treaty drafted at San Remo, this was far from constituting anything in the nature of a legal claim, and that the use of such words might be, and was, indeed, certain to be, used as the basis of all sorts of political claims by the Zionists for the control of Palestinian administration in the future, and ;2) that, while Mr. Balfour’s Declaration had provided for the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, this was not the same thing as the reconstitution of Palestine as a Jewish National Home–an extension of the phrase for which there was no justification, and which was certain to be employed in the future as the basis for claims of the character to which I have referred. On the other hand, the Zionists pleaded for the insertion of some such phrase in the preamble, on the ground that it would make all the difference to the money that they aspired to raise in foreign, countries for the development of Palestine. Mr. Balfour, who interested himself keenly in their case, admitted, however, the force of the above contentions, and, on the eve of leaving for Geneva, suggested an alternative form of words which I am prepared to recommend. Paragraph 3 of the Preamble would then conclude as follows (vide the words italicised in the Draft-; ” and whereas recognition lias thereby (i.e., by the Treaty of Sevres) been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine, and to the grounds for reconstituting their National Home in that country.” Simultaneously the Zionists pressed for the concession of preferential rights for themselves in respect of public works, &c, in Article 11. It was felt unanimously, and was agreed by Mr. Balfour, that there was no ground for making this concession, which ought to be refused. . . During the last few hours a telegram has been received from Sir H. Samuel, urging that, in order to facilitate the raising of loans by the Palestine Administration, which will otherwise be impossible, words should be added to Article 27, providing that on the termination of the Mandate, the future Government of Palestine shall fully honour the financial obligations incurred by the Palestinian Administration during the period of the Mandate. This appears to be a quite reasonable demand, and I have accordingly added words (italicised at the end of Article 27) in order to meet it. With this explanation, therefore, I hope that the Mandates in the form now submitted may be formally passed and forwarded to the Council of the League. C. OF K. November 30, 1920. “During the Versailles Peace Conference, US Secretary of State Lansing specifically asked Dr. Weizmann “to clear up some confusion which existed in his mind as to the correct meaning of the words “Jewish National Home”. Did that mean an autonomous Jewish Government?” Dr Weizmann” replied in the negative.” and provided an explanation which ruled-out any possibility of Jewish minority rule over the non-Jewish population under the terms of the proposed Mandate. See the “The Council of Ten: minutes of meetings February 15 to June 17, 1919, page 169 in Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919. *The ‘Council of Four Conference Held in the Prime Minister’s Flat at 23 Rue Nitot, Paris, on Thursday, March 20, 1919, at 3 p.m. was attended by Prime Ministers Lloyd George, Clemenceau, and Orlando. President Wilson, Lord Balfour, and General Allenby also attended. That meeting resulted in the dispatch of the King-Crane Commission to determine the wishes of the inhabitants after a discussion regarding the McMahon letters to King Hussein. Lloyd George explained that they were a binding treaty commitment. He said that the League of Nations Mandate (i.e. the Balfour Declaration) could not be used to put aside the bargain with King Hussein.” “Concerning the United States it has signed a treaty with Great Britain on December 3, 1924 in London, the “Anglo-American Convention” respecting the Mandate for Palestine in which it assented to ALL of the mandate as the basis for the British administration of Palestine. . . .The U.S thereby expressly recognized in a treaty the right of the Jewish People to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in all of Mandated Palestine and the Land of Israel *The preamble of the Convention merely recited the articles of the League of Nations Palestine mandate. It made no mention of a Jewish National Home in “all of Mandated Palestine and the Land of Israel” or a legal “right” to reconstitute anything there. The UNSCOP Commission noted that the term “National Home” had no meaning in international law: “The notion of the National Home, which derived from the formulation of Zionist aspirations in the 1897 Basle program has provoked many discussions concerning its meaning, scope and legal character, especially since it has no known legal connotation and there are no precedents in international law for its interpretation. See paragraph 141, of the UNSCOP Report to the General Assembly, A/364, 3 September 1947” “King-Crane Commission Report noted: “For ‘a national home for the Jewish people’ is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State; nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the ‘civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.’ The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.” “The fact is that the Council of the League of Nations appointed an arbiter, in accordance with the Treaty of Lausanne, at the request of the British government in 1924. The UK successfully argued that Palestine, Transjordan, and Iraq were newly created States under mandate to Great Britain. That same year, the Permanent Court of International Justice also ruled in a separate case that Palestine was the allied successor state to the obligations and assets of the Ottoman Empire in accordance with the protocols of the treaty of Lausanne, not Great Britain. So there was already a State of Palestine – and the 1922 White Paper had already established that it wasn’t intended to be a Jewish state. The rights and standing of the Arab majority always had been legally protected under the terms of Article 22 of the Covenant, the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo resolution, and the League of Nations mandate itself.” “From the very outset, the Israeli government and the Israeli Supreme Court have formally rejected the Mandate and San Remo homeland hasbara as valid bases for any legal claims. See for example CApp 41/49 Simshon Palestine Portland Cement Factory LTD. v. Attorney-General (1950), http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files_eng/49/410/000/z01/49000410.z01.pdf” “At the time that the League of Nations approved the terms of the draft Palestine Mandate, the borders of Palestine were still undefined and the right to establish them was explicitly reserved by the Principal Allied Powers, not by the Jewish inhabitants. See: a) the text of the preamble of the Mandate and the annex adopted by the Council of the League of Nations: b) The explicit terms of the boundary treaties of 1920, 1923, and 1926 which preserved the existing rights of the inhabitants of Syria Lebanon, and Palestine to continue engaging in fishing, navigation, commerce, and grazing on both sides of the new frontiers without any reference or regard to “the Jewish national home”. See for example: http://www.hartzman.com/Israel/Mandate%20Era/British-French%20Boundary%20Agreement,%201923.pdf “Article 80 of the UN Charter did nothing to grant Jews the right of settlement in Zones A and B. It was adopted as a “status quo” agreement at the request of the Arab League with respect to the Palestine mandate, the 1939 British White Paper immigration policies, and the 1940 Land Transfer Ordinance mentioned above. If anything, article 80 preserved the right to exclude Jews from settling in those areas – pending the adoption of a decision on trusteeship, like the one contained in resolution 181(II) concerning the Corpus Separatum.” Now show me where, 1) Sovereignty was vested in The Jewish People? 2)The Jewish people were made ‘national beneficiaries? 3)Show me one legal document where state is mentioned in regard to the Jewish ‘national home’? 4)Show me where Israel declared her independence and borders based on the mandate? 5)Name one nation who recognizes Israel’s legality according to the mandate. 6) If it is illegal to acquire territory by war and if armistice lines were not borders before the armistice and if the Sovereign state of Israel has never legally annexed any territory, can you please produce a map of Israel’s actual Sovereign territory, that includes Ashkelon, Beer Sheeba, Acre, and all the territories acquired by war by 1949 Sovereign states must have defined territory in order to be recognized as sovereign states. As Israel is a Sovereign state and it has never legally annexed any of the territories it has acquired by war, what are its actual sovereign borders? The first three questions MUST be answered as they are CENTRAL TO THE HASBARIST CLAIMS. I also note that one of the sorces used in your cut and paste job is from Joan Peters ‘From Time Immemorial’ which is one of the biggest hoaxes of the past 100 years. ‘Mrs. Peters’s Palestine’ by Yehoshua Porath “For centuries the future of the place called Palestine was the subject of a bitter struggle. Even the name was controversial. Where the Arabs transformed the Roman name of Palestine into the Arabian name Filastin, the Jews insisted on the traditional Hebrew name Eretz Israel, “The Land of Israel.” Zealots of both sides continue to refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the name used by the other side. In the early days of the British Mandate, for instance, the Arabs successfully convinced the British that even in Hebrew the name should be Palestina and not Eretz Israel. The British added the initials “El” to Palestina only over heavy Arab opposition. On the other hand, some Israeli educators of the 1950s wanted only a transliteration of the Hebrew name to appear in the textbooks that were used in the Arabic-speaking schools. Along with armed struggle, ideological and propagandistic warfare of this sort has proliferated in the Arab–Jewish conflict over Palestine. One feature of this battle of words and of history writing has been the two contrasting mythologies that the Arabs and the Jews have developed to explain their situations. Like most myths these generally contain some element of plausibility, some grain of historical truth, which through terminological ambiguity is then twisted into a false and grotesque shape: The unfortunate thing about Joan Peters’s From Time Immemorial (1984) is that from a position of apparently great learning and research, she attempts to refute the Arab myths merely by substituting the Jewish myths for them. Although she claims to have uncovered facts that show the historical accuracy of the Jewish myths, there have appeared during the last year and a half, in addition to many favorable reviews, a number of articles that dispute her collection and interpretation of this data.1 I do not propose here to go over the ground that these criticisms have already covered. Rather, I shall discuss both sets of myths in the light of the political and social history of Palestine as it is currently understood. T he Arab side tried to prove that first of all the Jews were not a nation in the modern sense of the term and consequently did not require a state of their own. In the tradition of both Western liberal and doctrinaire socialist thinking, the Arabs argued that the Jews were only a religious community; that peoples could not return to their ancient homelands without turning the entire world upside down; and, most important, that Palestine had been settled since the seventh century AD by Arabs. Over the years many Arab ideologists even claimed that Arabs had occupied the land in pre-Biblical times because of the “Arab character” of Canaanites. Zionism, the Arab argument continued, if it had any grain of historical justification at all, emerged only in a European setting. It came about as a reaction to Western Christian or secular and racist anti-Semitism, with which the Arabs had nothing to do; therefore, they should not be required to pay the costs of remedying it. In Arab and Islamic countries Jews suffered none of the terrible treatment that Western Jews had suffered. On the contrary, the Muslims in general and the Arabs in particular treated their religious and ethnic minorities with full equality and enabled both Christians and Jews to take part in public life, to rise to high positions of state, and, in recent times, to become full members of the modern and secular Arab nation living in its various states. The Jews living in the Arab and Muslim countries, moreover, did not take part in the Zionist movement. They even actively opposed it and did not want to emigrate to Israel. That most of them eventually did so the Arabs attribute to the machinations of Israel working with corrupt Arab rulers who were “stooges of imperialism.” After the 1948 war Arab propaganda added an important new claim: since the Jews wanted Palestine empty of Arabs, they used the opportunity of the war to systematically expel the indigenous Arab population wherever they could do so. Some Arab writers, and others favorable to their cause, have gone so far as to claim that the war itself was set off in December 1947 by the Jews in order to create the right circumstances for the mass expulsion of Palestinian Arabs from their homeland. Until the mid-1960s the Arab claims were usually presented as part of the ideology of Arab nationalism. Palestine was (and ideologically speaking still is) considered part of the greater Arab homeland and the Palestinians part of the greater Arab nation. The aim of the Arab struggle was to preserve the Arab character of Palestine from the Jewish-Zionist threat. The Palestinian case was at best secondary when it was made at all. Only since the middle of the 1960s and particularly after 1967 has the distinctively Palestinian component become relatively stronger among the factors that shape the identity of the Palestinian Arabs. J ews, and Zionists especially, developed their own myths about Palestine. First they interpreted ancient Jewish history according to the ideology of modern nationalism, equating the old Israelite and Judean kingdoms with modern nation-states. The Maccabean revolt and the period of Hasmonean rule were seen as typical manifestations of the struggle for modern national liberation. During the years when most Jews lived in exile, it was argued, they always kept a separate national identity: they never converted of their free will to another religion, and they preserved the memory of their ancestral land, to which they always hoped to return. Indeed, against all odds, some never left. Special emphasis was put on this last group. Every bit of evidence that could be found, however trivial it may have been, was used to prove the continuity of the Jewish presence in Eretz Israel and to show that it was central to the life of Jews in exile. Very little was said of the Muslims who meanwhile had become the great majority of the population and the masters of the land. The Zionists argued that Jewish identity and the yearning to return to Palestine were strengthened by the persecutions of the Jews in all parts of the world, including the Islamic and Arab countries. The return itself was mainly perceived as a matter of Jewish resolve to establish a homeland, which required struggle against Palestine’s foreign rulers—the Ottoman Empire first, and then the British Mandate. The Arab population was not presented as a major obstacle since, it was said, it was so small. Palestine during the late Ottoman and early British periods was portrayed as a barren land, hardly inhabited, whose tiny Arab population consisted mostly of wandering Bedouin tribes whose presence was only temporary. According to the Zionist myth, only modern Jewish colonization brought about the economic development of Palestine and improved the hard conditions there. These developments, it was said, attracted poor Arabs from the stagnant neighboring countries. Their numbers grew faster than the Jewish immigrants because the malicious British authorities always encouraged them to come and did much to help to absorb them, both economically and legally. The 1948 war, the Jewish argument continues, erupted because the Arabs rejected the UN partition plan although it offered them much more land than they deserved. And since most of the Palestinian Arabs were in fact aliens, they quickly left the country to return to their permanent homelands. Only the persistent refusal of the rulers of the Arab countries prevented them from being absorbed there. The Jewish refugees from the Arab countries were, on the other hand, cared for and rehabilitated. The result was an “exchange of populations” which should have been confirmed in a political agreement; only Arab intransigence has kept this from taking place. B oth the Arab and the Jewish myths I have described have circulated widely for years. Nothing in either of them is new or revolutionary. The more extreme you were in your Zionist beliefs the more thoroughly you propagated the Jewish mythology. What is surprising is that Joan Peters still writes as if the Zionist myths were wholly true and relevant, notwithstanding all the historical work that modifies or discredits them. The surprise is even greater when one considers her claim to have done original research in the historical archives and even to have discovered “overlooked ‘secret’ (British) correspondence files” in the Public Record Office in London, among other sources of “neglected” information. Indeed, by looking for the “right” evidence and by reading documents selectively one can “prove” virtually anything. But substituting Jewish-Zionist myths for Arab ones will not do. Neither historiography nor the Zionist cause itself gains anything from mythologizing history. I will deal here only with the main historical questions raised in Mrs. Peters’s book. No doubt, as she claims, the Jews in Muslim countries were neither regarded nor treated as fellow countrymen and equal citizens. Islam protected their lives and most of their religious rights but also kept them in a distinctively inferior position. Legally, their status was defined by the famous “Covenant of Umar,” which listed the various restrictions and special taxes imposed on the “people of the book.” But the true historical situation cannot be described simply by referring to that covenant, as Mrs. Peters does, or by citing the occasions and places where its provisions were most severely carried out. There was better and worse treatment, and local considerations usually influenced the policy pursued by various rulers. It is typical of Mrs. Peters’s methods that she largely overlooks the position of the Jews under the Ottoman Empire—one of the most important phases of all Islamic history. The reason would seem a simple one: the attitude of the Ottoman authorities toward the Jews was generally fair and decent, and in some parts of the empire many Jews held prominent positions.2 This could not be squared with her description of the oppression of Jews under Islam. (The few references Mrs. Peters makes to the Ottoman rulers emphasize their “anti-Jewish” activities and give a distorted impression of conditions under the Ottomans.) P art of Mrs. Peters’s confusion derives from her misunderstanding of Zionist history. Zionism was basically a modern secular ideology and movement, a response to the situation of European Jews after their emancipation early in the nineteenth century. Although they had been promised equality as fellow citizens many of them found themselves rejected. That they were ready to adopt their countries’ languages and cultures and sometimes even religions did not help them. Instead of—or in addition to—being rejected on religious and cultural grounds, as they had been since the end of the eleventh century, they were now rejected racially. Zionism offered an alternative. Its ideologists stressed that although in the post-emancipation period most Jews had stopped practicing their religion, they still remained a corporate unit, a distinct people. In order to safeguard their national identity and defend themselves from anti-Semitism the Jews had to return to their ancestral land, restore their national independence, and revive their language and culture. This position was directly opposed both to the traditional religious attitude of waiting for the Messiah and to the belief in God’s miraculous intervention in history that produced such false messianic movements as Shabbetai Zevi’s. Because Zionism was predominantly a European and secular phenomenon, many Oriental Jews in the Middle East and North Africa have never felt at ease with it and have tried to derive their own sense of Jewish history and identity. In Israel, under the guidance of the former Israeli minister of education, Zevulun Hammer, they have formulated a new Zionism that belittles the ideological and political revolution of European secular Zionism and argues that Theodor Herzl and the Zionist organization had hardly any effect on Jewish history. According to this interpretation Zionism began with Abraham and has been continued by practically all the Jews who have come to the Holy Land, whether to spend their old age and be buried there, or to engage in study or in business. All these are now regarded as Zionists in Oriental Jewish religious circles. Most historians now consider this view as in fact the opposite of Zionism, but, astonishingly, it has been adopted in its entirety in Mrs. Peters’s book without any serious discussion of its implications. What seems to have been decisive for Mrs. Peters is that the conception fits the myth of Oriental and religious Jewish history she has adopted: since in her view Oriental Jews were always persecuted, they must always have been active Zionists. For her there was no fundamental difference between, on the one hand, a prayer to return to Zion made in Wilna or Marrakesh or the messianism of Shabbetai Zevi, and, on the other, a modern movement that actively organized immigration, established youth organizations, and launched a political struggle for getting political rights in Palestine. M uch of Mrs. Peters’s book argues that at the same time that Jewish immigration to Palestine was rising, Arab immigration to the parts of Palestine where Jews had settled also increased. Therefore, in her view, the Arab claim that an indigenous Arab population was displaced by Jewish immigrants must be false, since many Arabs only arrived with the Jews. The precise demographic history of modern Palestine cannot be summed up briefly, but its main features are clear enough and they are very different from the fanciful description Mrs. Peters gives. It is true that in the middle of the nineteenth century there was neither a “Palestinian nation” nor a “Palestinian identity.” But about four hundred thousand Arabs—the great majority of whom were Muslims—lived in Palestine, which was divided by the Ottomans into three districts. Some of these people were the descendants of the pre-Islamic population that had adopted Islam and the Arabic language; others were members of Bedouin tribes, although the penetration of Bedouins was drastically curtailed after the mid-nineteenth century, when the Ottoman authorities became stronger and more efficient. As all the research by historians and geographers of modern Palestine shows, the Arab population began to grow again in the middle of the nineteenth century. That growth resulted from a new factor: the demographic revolution. Until the 1850s there was no “natural” increase of the population, but this began to change when modern medical treatment was introduced and modern hospitals were established, both by the the Ottoman authorities and by the foreign Christian missionaries. The number of births remained steady but infant mortality decreased. This was the main reason for Arab population growth, not incursions into the country by the wandering tribes who by then had become afraid of the much more efficient Ottoman troops. Toward the end of Ottoman rule the various contemporary sources no longer lament the outbreak of widespread epidemics. This contrasts with the Arabic chronicles of previous periods in which we find horrible descriptions of recurrent epidemics—typhoid, cholera, bubonic plague—decimating the population. Under the British Mandate, with still better sanitary conditions, more hospitals, and further improvements in medical treatment, the Arab population continued to grow. T he Jews were amazed. In spite of the Jewish immigration, the natural increase of the Arabs—at least twice the rate of the Jews’—slowed down the transformation of the Jews into a majority in Palestine. To account for the delay the theory, or myth, of large-scale immigration of Arabs from the neighboring countries was proposed by Zionist writers. Mrs. Peters accepts that theory completely; she has apparently searched through documents for any statement to the effect that Arabs entered Palestine. But even if we put together all the cases she cites, one cannot escape the conclusion that most of the growth of the Palestinian Arab community resulted from a process of natural increase. The Mandatory authorities carried out two modern censuses, in 1922 and 1931. Except for some mistakes committed in 1922 in counting the Negev Bedouins, which were corrected in 1931, the returns showed the strength of the “natural process” of increase. The figures for the last years of the mandate are based on continuous collection of data by the department of statistics. These figures showed that in 1947 there were about 1.3 million Arabs living in Palestine. The strength of the process of natural increase was finally proved not elsewhere but in Israel itself. In 1949 there were about 150,000 Arabs in Israel within the 1949 armistice lines. To that number, one has to add the 20,000-odd refugees who returned to the state as part of the government’s scheme for the “reunion of families.” The Israeli authorities cannot be blamed, as the British “imperialists” were, for helping the Arabs enter the country. And despite the strict control of Israel’s borders, the number of Arabs living in Israel proper has more than trebled since. The rate of the Israeli Arabs’ natural increase rose sharply (between 1964 and 1966 it reached the world record of 4.5 percent a year) and brought about the remarkable increase in the size of that community. No Egyptians, Bedouins, Syrians, Bosnians, etc. were needed. N o one would doubt that some migrant workers came to Palestine from Syria and Trans-Jordan and remained there. But one has to add to this that there were migrations in the opposite direction as well. For example, a tradition developed in Hebron to go to study and work in Cairo, with the result that a permanent community of Hebronites had been living in Cairo since the fifteenth century. Trans-Jordan exported unskilled casual labor to Palestine; but before 1948 its civil service attracted a good many educated Palestinian Arabs who did not find work in Palestine itself. Demographically speaking, however, neither movement of population was significant in comparison to the decisive factor of natural increase. Most serious students of the history of Palestine would accept that the number of Arab refugees from Israel during and after 1948 claimed by Arab and UN sources—some 600,000 to 750,000—was exaggerated. It is very easy to refute that estimate and many have already done it. Very few historians would accept the claim that all of the refugees, or even most of them, were deliberately expelled by the Israelis any more than they would accept the Israeli counterclaim that all left of their own accord. Mrs. Peters has gone to great lengths to collect the statements made by Arabs in which they admit that the Palestinian Arab refugees left Palestine because they expected Arab military victory, after which they intended to return. Nevertheless, although she admits that in sporadic instances Arabs were expelled, she ignores evidence of Israeli intentions to expel them. I would like to draw her attention to one document which proves that the Haganah did in certain circumstances have such an intention. As historians of the 1948 war know well, the Haganah prepared in March 1948 a strategic plan (the Dalet or “fourth” plan) to deal with the imminent invasion of Palestine by the Arab countries. A major aim of the plan was to form a continuous territory joining the lands held by the Jewish settlements. The plan clearly states that if Arab villages violently opposed the Jewish attempt to gain control, their populations would be expelled. The text was first made public in Israel in 1972 as an appendix to the last volume of the semiofficial History of the Haganah. I do not know why Mrs. Peters overlooked this important document. That the plan existed, of course, is not in itself evidence that it was carried out. Neither, however, is the admission of the Syrian leader Khalid al-Azm that the Arab countries urged the Palestinian Arabs to leave their villages until after the victory of the Arab armies final proof that the Palestinian Arabs in practice heeded that call and consequently left. Since Mrs. Peters supposedly took the trouble to read Khalid al-Azm’s Arabic memoirs, she at least should have consulted the appendix of the History of the Haganah‘s last volume.^3 Mrs. Peters puts great emphasis on the claim that during and after the 1948 war an “exchange of populations” took place. Against the Arabs who left Palestine one had to put, in her view, about the same number of Jews, most of them driven by the Arab rulers from their traditional homes in the Arab world. And indeed there is a superficial similarity between the two movements of population. But their ideological and historical significance is entirely different. From a Jewish-Zionist point of view the immigration of the Jews of the Arab countries to Israel, expelled or not, was the fulfillment of a national dream—the “ingathering of the exiles.” Since the 1930s the Jewish Agency had sent agents, teachers, and instructors to the various Arab countries in order to propagate Zionism. They organized Zionist youth movements there and illegal immigration to Palestine. Israel then made great efforts to absorb these immigrants into its national, political, social, and economic life. For the Palestinian Arabs the flight of 1948 was completely different. It resulted in an unwanted national calamity that was accompanied by unending personal tragedies. The result was the collapse of the Palestinian community, the fragmentation of a people, and the loss of a country that had in the past been mostly Arabic-speaking and Islamic. No wonder that the Arabs look at what happened very differently. When Mrs. Peters argues, as many Israeli and pro-Israeli spokesmen once did, that all refugees should live and be rehabilitated in their new countries, the Arabs reply that all refugees should go back to their countries of origin. When, in 1976, they invited former Jewish citizens to return, they did so not only from the mistaken belief that Oriental Jews’ attachment to Israel was weak, but also from the need to refute the Israeli argument, now repeated forcefully by Mrs. Peters, that there was a symmetry between the two movements of population. B y stressing and strengthening the claim of symmetry Mrs. Peters plays, at least from an ideological point of view and certainly against her own wishes, into the hands of Arab propaganda. Many Israeli agents in such Arab countries as Iraq, Yemen, and Morocco made courageous efforts to bring about the aliyah (ascendance, the usual Hebrew word for immigration to Israel) of the Oriental Jews of Arab countries. Did this dangerous work count for nothing? Were the immigrants merely ordinary refugees and not people ascending to Zion? By attempting to equate the Arab refugees with the Jewish immigrants, Mrs. Peters, in my view, tarnishes a heroic chapter in Zionist history. Mrs. Peters’s use of sources is very selective and tendentious, to say the least. In order to strengthen the impression that the “hidden hand” of history somehow brought about the reasonable solution of exchange of Jewish and Arab populations, Mrs. Peters evidently wanted to show that the concept had an honorable lineage. She quotes an “Arab leader” who talked of a population exchange in a leaflet distributed in Damascus in 1939, and gives his name as Mojli Amin. I challenge any reader to identify this “leader.” He is not mentioned in any of the books on Syria I know of, although I have read many. And if some wholly unimportant writer made such a statement, how can any serious importance be attached to it? But beyond that, I think that the leaflet is a fake. During the spring of 1939 internal dissent was at its most intense among the factions of the militant Palestinian Arabs, which included anti-British rebels, anti-Jewish rebels, and the “Peace Companies,” which opposed rebellion. In Damascus, where the headquarters of the rebels were located, faked leaflets were often distributed in order to add to the dissension. I suspect that this leaflet was another example of the same literary genre. If Mrs. Peters had more thoroughly investigated the files of the Arab section of the political department of the Jewish Agency, she would, I hope, have seen why the evidence she cites should be used more cautiously. One flawed source was not enough, however. Mrs. Peters claims that “the British had proposed the exchange of ‘Arab population in Palestine’ for Jews elsewhere.” If one looks for the evidence for this claim, one suddenly realizes that “the British” are none other than William Ormsby-Gore (not yet Lord) who had privately supported the idea. It is odd to conclude from this that “the British” supported such an idea, all the more so when one recalls that when Ormsby-Gore served as British colonial secretary in charge of Palestine he never used his official position to promote that idea as such. The only exchange of populations he officially envisaged was to have been a part of the 1937 partition plan that allocated 15 percent of Palestine to the Jews and recommended that the Arabs be forcibly removed from the territory on which the proposed Jewish state would be founded. If Mrs. Peters had spent more than “weeks” in the Public Record Office (the official British archives) or if she had read the relevant historical research she would have known that a similar offer was brought to the members of the British cabinet but rejected. We now know that between 1939 and 1941 Churchill favored a diplomatic initiative that would have included the transfer of the Palestinian Arabs to a federal Arab state under Ibn Saud. He had been convinced that such a transfer was desirable by Chaim Weizmann, who had discussed the possibility with H. St. John Philby. Churchill presented a version of Weizmann’s proposal to his colleagues on May 19, 1941. He succeeded only in provoking a hostile reaction on the part of the foreign secretary, Anthony Eden, who made his famous pro-Arab speech of May 29, 1941, in reaction to Churchill’s proposition. Several days afterward Eden’s speech was endorsed by the British cabinet. So much for the “British” origins of the concept of exchange of populations. O f course there was no separate state called Palestine before the British Mandate and there is no need to demonstrate this at length, as Mrs. Peters tries to do. Nonetheless a large majority of Muslim Arabs inhabited the land; and the desire to keep it that way was the goal of the Arab struggle in Palestine against the Jews and the British. Of what possible significance, therefore, is Mrs. Peters’s claim that Arab domination of Palestine after its conquest by the Muslims in 635 AD lasted only twenty-two years? Was the land empty of any population? Such a vague claim is typical of many others made in the book. What is more surprising is the authority on which it is based. We are told that a statement to this effect was made in February 1919 to the Paris Peace Conference by “the Muslim chairman of the Syrian delegation.” An innocent reader would take it that this delegation was representing the Arab population of Syria, who were then struggling for independence. In fact the delegation was organized by the French as a device to oppose the nationalist struggle, and its chairman would have said anything required by his masters. Whether the Palestinian Arabs saw their identity as having local roots or whether they saw themselves more as part of the larger Arab world, they undoubtedly wanted Palestine to remain Arab. That the name of the country in Arabic, as in most other languages, is derived from the name of the Philistines does not matter to them any more than the fact that the name of Jerusalem, even in Hebrew, is derived from the Jebusees. All such terminological claims, and there are plenty of them in Mrs. Peters’s book, are worthless. M rs. Peters puts forward yet another familiar Zionist argument—which has the advantage of being true—that already in the nineteenth century Jews made up the majority in Jerusalem, Safed, and Tiberias. But if we say that having a majority is the key factor in determining the national character of any given town or area, why not apply this principle, the Arabs may ask, to the land as a whole? Surprisingly enough, Mrs. Peters does just this when she implies that in 1893 the Jews were virtually the majority community in the parts of Palestine where Jews had settled. Her very tendentious reasoning on this point has already been exposed.4 What she has done, to put it briefly, is to compare the figures for non-Jews in the 1893 Ottoman census of Palestine with the estimate of the Jewish population proposed by the French geographer Vital Cuinet in 1895. She dismisses the Ottoman figures for the Jews because, she says, “the Ottoman Census apparently registered only known Ottoman subjects; since most Jews had failed to obtain Ottoman citizenship, a representative figure of the Palestinian Jewish population could not be extrapolated from the 1893 Census.” This may sound plausible, until one discovers, first, that Cuinet’s estimates are generally considered to be unreliable, and, second, that Professor Kemal Karpat of the University of Wisconsin, whose analysis of the Ottoman census Peters relies on, does not find the census estimate of the Jewish population to be inaccurate in the way she claims. (Even with the numbers that she does arrive at, incidentally, Mrs. Peters does not make a case for a Jewish majority. Although she argues there were more Jews than Muslims or Christians—59,500 as compared to 56,000 and 38,000—there were more Muslims and Christians than Jews by her own account.) If the Arabs had indeed been as few as Mrs. Peters claims, one wonders why the letters, official reports, diaries, and essays of the early Zionist settlers—the “Lovers of Zion”—from the last two decades of the nineteenth century were filled with references to the Arabs surrounding them everywhere in Palestine. Those writings were collected many years ago and published by Asher Druyanov.5 Republished several years ago they are now easily accessible, but apparently not for Mrs. Peters. Similarly, she has overlooked two of the most important articles by Jewish writers dealing with the Arab problem, which even around the turn of the century troubled the Jewish immigrants to Palestine. The first was written in 1891 by Ahad Ha’am, perhaps the greatest modern Jewish thinker, and was called “Truth from Palestine”; the second, called “Hidden Question,” was written in 1907 by Y. Epstein and published in Ha-Shiloah. Both writers exhorted their fellow Jews in Palestine to take seriously the large Arab population and its feelings; the Ottoman Empire might go, they wrote, but the Arabs would remain. Anyone who believes Mrs. Peters’s book would have to conclude that these distinguished writers, a philosopher and an educator with close experience of life in Palestine, had simply invented the existence of the many Arabs there. I am reluctant to bore the reader and myself with further examples of Mrs. Peters’s highly tendentious use—or neglect—of the available source material. Much more important is her misunderstanding of basic historical processes and her failure to appreciate the central importance of natural population increase as compared to migratory movements. Readers of her book should be warned not to accept its factual claims without checking their sources. Judging by the interest that the book aroused and the prestige of some who have endorsed it, I thought it would present some new interpretation of the historical facts. I found none. Everyone familiar with the writing of the extreme nationalists of Zeev Jabotinsky’s Revisionist party (the forerunner of the Herut party) would immediately recognize the tired and discredited arguments in Mrs. Peters’s book. I had mistakenly thought them long forgotten. It is a pity that they have been given new life”. Some further reviews of Peter’s book “marred by serious flaws”, “numbers are used selectively to support otherwise baseless conclusions”, “The whole book is written like this: facts are selected or misunderstood, tortuous and flimsy arguments are expressed in violent and repetitive language. This is a ludicrous and worthless book, and the only mildly interesting question it raises is why it comes with praise from two well-known American writers” and, “This is a startling and disturbing book. It is startling because, despite the author’s professed ignorance of the historiography of the Arab-Israeli conflict and lack of knowledge of Middle Eastern history (pp. 221, 335) coupled with her limitation to sources largely in English (absolutely no Arab sources are used), she engages in the rewriting of history on the basis of little evidence. …The undocumented numbers in her book in no way allow for the wild and exaggerated assertions that she makes or for her conclusion. This book is disturbing because it seems to have been written for purely polemical and political reasons: to prove that Jordan is the Palestinian state. This argument, long current among revisionist Zionists, has regained popularity in Israel and among Jews since the Likud party came to power in Israel in 1977”
  17. Christopher Proudlove

    “The clearance was aided by Arab radio broadcasts.”
    See a previous blog on the http://www.christiansforzion.com website. Have you gorgitten this already, Trevor?

  18. Christopher Proudlove

    For gorgitten (above) please read forgotten

  19. Christopher Proudlove

    All Fleet Street columnists have made mistakes, Trevor. Even provincial newspapers have lawyers who check for possible libels. What were The Spectator lawyers doing? They certainly let down the publication, not to say Melanie Phillips.
    Trevor, you are no better. Remember your libellous headline ‘Chris Proudlove proves Mike Fryer is a liar.’ My reply exposed your big lie, and not for the first time either.

  20. Christopher Proudlove

    We are well aware, Trevor, that the UK did the dirty in the 1930s on Jews by reversing the Balfour intentions. However, Israel did come into being in 1948 because the Almighty, in so many Bible passages, had decreed it.

  21. I’ll refer you to here,


    You have 30 mins to cut and paste your comments from here and move them to where i have linked.

    The only exception is the Melanie [mad mel] Philips comment.

    30 mins!

  22. Oh and btw. Put your comments in one comment and stop being childish.

  23. Christopher Proudlove

    Trevor has gone to great lengths about Joan Peters, but she has never been promoted in http://www.christiansforzion.com blogs.

  24. Christopher Proudlove

    I have done what I have done. You cut and paste them if you like, but if they are left out I will quit writing on this website.

  25. From a CfZ blog written by Chris Proudlove

    >”When investigative journalist Joan Peters researched British Mandate documents she found that most Arabs were as new to the land as the returning Jews.

    Peters, in her book ‘From Time Immemorial,’ notes a huge jump in Arab numbers around 1930, a rise not attributable to natural growth. Most Arab growth was near Jewish population centres where there were jobs. These facts demolish the myth of Jews pushing out Arabs. First-hand accounts and meticulously-researched data like this are barred from PA textbooks in favour of warped accounts that foment armed conflict.”


    Caught lying again!

  26. “I have done what I have done. You cut and paste them if you like, but if they are left out I will quit writing on this website.”

    Bye bye and close the door behind you, Chris or should i say BJ Bailey.

  27. https://christiansforzionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/israels-real-legitimacy/

    “Before you smell a rat Trevor. The above addition of mine was sent on Buster’s PC and it has come out under his name rather than mine”

    About that. I have spent the past 2 days checking up on the ip addresses you have posted from and YOU ARE CAUGHT RED HANDED. Last Saturday you posted twice from the same ip address in the space of just over 30 mins, once in your own name and the other under the name of BJ Bailey. Now, after some investigation it seems you are using computers belonging to a county council service such as a college or some other form of educational outlet. If you are going to insult my intelligence by denying that you are posting under the name of BJ Bailey i will be forced to reveal the county councils from where you post, the ip addresses you have used and your email address. You will also be banned!

    You are now officially on your last warning. Since coming to this website you have tried too bully and intimidate me with threats of legal action.

    You have posted up a needless comment that i can only call disgusting.

    You have continually spammed threads with your cut and paste Zionist Hasbara propaganda. I assume that all these posts you put up are from links you receive via email. THIS BLOG IS NOT FOR YOU TO SPREAD YOUR DISGUSTING PROPAGANDA. You will cease this activity at once or you will be banned.

    You repeatedly post the same nonsense about San Remo even though i have rebutted your sources on multiple occasions and therefore wasting my time and the time of those who visit this blog.

    We know you have no idea about what you are talking about regarding San Remo. In one of your previous “rebuttals” you posted this,

    ” Israel actually has a better claim to its existence, having been created by the U.N. rather than by the whims and national interests of the Allied victors.”

    When you get caught out lying you dismiss the proof. Such examples being:

    UNSC Res.242. You got caught lying about that resolution and now you claim UN resolutions don’t count.

    You were proved wrong on what the Americans thought and claimed America had no say.

    You tried to use the ICJ as a badge of honour regarding one of your sources and when i showed you the actual ICJ findings you dismissed the ICJ as irrelevant.

    And there is many more.

    Your own comments ie. non cut and paste material ampunt to nothing more than immature nonsense such as,

    “San Remo rues ok”

    I would call that childish but in doing so i’d be insulting the intelligence of children the world over.


  28. Christopher Proudlove

    Israel actually has a better claim to its existence, having been created by the U.N. rather than by the whims and national interests of the Allied victors.”
    The above comment is true as more countries were involved in the decision!

  29. Christopher Proudlove

    DISGUSTING PROPAGANDA? No the items are from respected individuals who have a different take on Israel than you Trevor. If you will not allow their voices to be heard you will condemn yourself as a bigot, Trevor.

  30. Post your comments in the proper thread.

    Thank you.

  31. Christopher Proudlove

    It is true that I have not promoted Joan Peters, telling that her book is the greatest thing about Israel advocacy. I quote her, as I’ve quoted Winston Churchill, saying there was massive Arab immigration into the Holy Land in the 1930s. If I may say so, Trevor, you are prone to exaggeration

  32. “These facts demolish the myth of Jews pushing out Arabs. First-hand accounts and meticulously-researched data like this are barred from PA textbooks in favour of warped accounts that foment armed conflict.”

    Sounds like promoting to me.

    You got caught lying again. Accept it and move on.

  33. Christopher Proudlove

    More Arabs than Jews flitted to the Holy Land in the 1930s. That is a fact. You are the one that’s mistaken, Trevor.

  34. Christopher Proudlove

    In ISRAEL A History, Martin Gilbert writes: “As the economic situation in Palestine improved, partly as a result of British road building and social welfare activities, partly as a result of Jewish constructive enterprise, the Arab population grew, both by immigration and by natural increase.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s