|
Tsvi Misinai
May 18, 2002
Table of Contents:
Abstract
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict represents two contradicting
stands in the struggle for the Land of Israel, where each
side has its own rights and justifications. This situation
hurts the residents of the area and creates a major confusion
for them and for the rest of the world. Of late, world
terrorism partially justifies its horrible acts with the
existence of the conflict and as such, increases the severity
of the problem.
Israel’s stand regarding the Palestinian dilemma
has always been defensive, except for the issue of handling
terror. With the legitimization of the terrorists in
the auspices of the Oslo agreements and the continued
support of Arafat by the European community even now,
the objection to terrorism is not as effective as in
the past.
The peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians
in Camp David failed as a result of the Palestinians
raising the issue of the Right of Return. This right
stems from the historical rights of the Palestinian
refugees. In light of the Palestinians basing their
rights on history, Israel must properly answer in this
direction as well. Israel must deviate from its conventional
way of thinking and use an old-new premise regarding
the just solution to the problem. It must use argumentation
which stems from a proper vision of the historical facts
as will be explained further on, and deploy effective
public relations campaign regarding the problem. In
conjunction with smart military activities, this approach
could extricate Israel and the Palestinians from the
current complex situation as well as from the dispute
entirely.
The basis for this premise is the perception of the
historical facts in the Land of Israel over the last
two thousand years, which were raised firstly by David
Ben Gurion and Yitzchak Ben Zvi, which as of today it
is accepted to ignore their existence. This perception
will present the history in a very different light than
currently accepted, with strong implications for the
present and future.
The current historical perspective assumes that the
Jews who remained in the Land of Israel after the destruction
of the Second Temple, were driven out of the country
in several circumstances through the generations, and
in that way enabled the Palestinians to become the majority
in the country until the establishment of the State
of Israel. However, this perspective is incorrect. An
absolute majority of the Palestinians in the Land are
descendants of the nation of Israel who over the years
remained faithful to the Land, but were forced to convert
their religion and over the years became the bitterest
enemy of the Jews.
The above old-new perspective received serious backing
by two genetic research studies that were recently published
and which show that Jews are very close genetically
to the Palestinians, much more than to Arabs and other
nations.
The implications of this correct historical perspective
can go very far regarding the future of the region.
First and foremost, it must be used to reduce the hatred
by showing the blood connection. In addition, it shall
be used to show that Jews, and not Arabs, have the right
to the country.
However, most importantly – even if it requires
tremendous change in today’s accepted way of thinking,
it would be a grave mistake to avoid the historic truth
when dealing with the dispute and its solution. This
is especially so when the Palestinians present historical
rights as a stumbling block to the solution of the dispute
and when for so many years no one has succeeded in suggesting
a solution acceptable to both sides. All that has been
agreed upon, following major efforts of many talented
people, was the path towards worsening the dispute with
potential serious implications for regional and world
peace.
Highlights of the findings
and conclusions
Following is a brief summary for the benefit of those
readers that cannot dedicate the time to read the entire
paper, or would like to know more of what it is about
before investing the time in reading it in full.
Facts:
1. The Palestinians, by raising the issue of the Right
of Return, dragged the negotiations and attention to
historical issues.
2. When we look on the past – the vast majority
of the Palestinians in the Land of Israel (about 2/3)
are descendants of Jews that were forced to convert.
3. This is being supported by evidences from multiple
directions: Historical-Behavioral, Historical-Geographic,
Genetic, Customs and National-Geographic.
4. The Arab settlers to the Land of Israel in the period
1831-1948 are the settlers that really prevent a solution.
They are the main party behind terror and extreme Islam.
5. Yasser Arafat, the leader of Palestinian terror,
is himself an Arab settler, falsely calling himself
a Palestinian.
6. The Palestinian refugees are almost exclusively composed
of these settlers and their descendants.
7. The Arabs as well as other imperialists, and not
the Jews, are the real occupiers and oppressors in the
Land of Israel. Today this oppression continues through
terror.
8. In the 1948 war the Arabs invaded the land of Israel
with the intent to throw the Jews to the sea.
9. In 1948 the Arab countries called the Palestinians
to flee from the areas where hostilities took place.
10. As a result of the war an exchange of population
took place.
11. There were more Jewish refugees from Arab countries
than Arab refugees.
12. The property lost by Arab refugees is by far less
then by these Jewish refugees.
13. The suffering of the Arab refugees is continuing
only because the Arabs want to perpetuate the problem
and use it against Israel, including as a tool to eliminate
Jewish majority in Israel.
14. UN resolution 194 was issued before Jews were expelled
form Arab countries.
15. The UN resolution, that is not a binding one, was
anyhow replaced by Security Council resolutions 242
and 338 that are binding and also relate to the refugees
issue.
16. Islam, according to the Koran, recognizes the rights
of the people of Israel on the land of Israel, and their
right of return to the country.
Conclusions:
17. The aggressors of 1948 have no right to ask for
the reversal of the results of their aggression.
18. The only Right of Return to the Palestinian refugees
is to return to their original countries or, for a very
small minority - to their original people (the Jews).
19. Any financial compensation to refugees shall be
higher to Jews from Arab countries than to Arab refugees.
20. For the sake of solving the conflict, the Palestinians
have to select between historical justice and practical
justice.
21. The practical justice demands negotiations by honest
Palestinians without raising the issue of Right of Return.
22. The historical justice requires the Palestinians
in the land of Israel not to kill and commit suicide
but to rejoin their original Jewish nation.
23. The Palestinians have no right to hate Israel and
use aggression and terror that happen to be the source
of their troubles.
24. Neither any Israeli nor anybody else has the right
to compromise with terror, let alone support it.
25. A Palestinian state at this period will be a major
risk to the security of Israel and of Jordan, as well
as to the stability of the region. It may further prevent
a future comprehensive and just solution.
Part I - Introduction
The Problem
The main problem that stands in the way of achieving
peace and security in the Land of Israel is the feelings
of discrimination, self-pity and hatred of the Palestinians
towards Israel. The problem becomes more severe when
coupled with the loss of faith in the rightfulness of
the Zionist path and the demonstrations of weakness
on the part of some of the Israelis. This explosive
combination of realities on both sides encourages the
leaders of the Palestinian terror and their supporters
to believe in their ability to control, sooner or later
all the areas of the Land of Israel. As a result, any
chance of arriving at a lasting peace between the two
sides is prevented.
The Palestinians’ feelings of discrimination
are supported by a large part of the world, and the
hatred – by a large part of the Arab world. Even
among the Israeli Jewish citizens there are many who
support these feelings of discrimination and few who
even have become haters of their own nation. This wide
support for the Palestinian as a result of their suffering
reached a level that enables the Palestinians to use
aggression and horrible terror, while violating agreements
and implementing acts of deceit, in order to achieve
their goals and hurt Israel and its inhabitants.
As a result of the above, no solution in currently
seen to the worsening dispute. Any peace conference
planned will anyhow lead to a deadlock due to the lack
of agreement on the issue of an immediate establishment
of a Palestinian state. However, such a conference,
even if successfully started, will be interrupted and
aborted by a new horrible wave of Palestinian terror
aimed at pressing the Israelis for concessions.
The Israeli-Palestinian dispute, that represents two
conflicting stands for the control over the Land of
Israel, where each side believes in his justice, hurts
the inhabitants of the area and confuses the entire
world for so many years. The confusion, – while
it is clear to the Israelis that they cannot ignore
the Palestinian rights on one hand, and while on the
other hand the consequences of the dispute remain in
the constant limelight – causes a portion of the
Israelis to lose faith in the rightfulness of the Zionist
path. This in turn causes Israeli weakness, which expresses
itself first and foremost in internal strife, in a lack
of clear goals, and in defective public relations.
From a weak standpoint when the sole desire of Israel
is to have its neighbors leave them in peace, the previous
Prime Minister of Israel got to the point where he was
willing to endanger Israel’s existence, during
the negotiations at Camp David, in order to achieve
such peace. However, it is quite clear today, that even
with the price of tremendous concessions on Israel’s
side, which are totally unacceptable by most of the
Jews, no solution was forthcoming.
As was made clear to the entire world, even if the
problem of Jerusalem was solved, the issue of the Right
of Return is an impassible block on the way to peace.
This issue and the obstinacy regarding its use as a
spring board in order to create a Palestinian majority
in the State of Israel, proves that first and foremost
the Palestinians and their terrorist leaders have not
come to terms with the existence of a Jewish State in
the Land of Israel. In such a realm there is no viable
solution to the dispute in its entirety in the foreseeable
future.
To the above we must add the problem of the Jordan
Valley. Considering the recent behavior of the Palestinians,
only at the record of stupidity could Israel consider
turning it over to them, while they have already gotten
used to the idea that Israel has conceded this land.
The total control of the terrorists over the Palestinians
coupled with the recognition of the suffering of the
Palestinians and the need to solve it, caused Israel
with the support of the majority of the world to give
the Palestinian terrorists a reward for their terror
in the form of the Oslo Agreements. The minute the world
came to terms with the terror and made it worthwhile,
the world received a new generation of Arab terror that
has reached its current peak in the September 11th destruction
in New York. At the moment, it appears that the acceptance
of Hitler’s terror that catalyzed the outbreak
of WWII has repeated itself with the outbreak of world
war against terror and hosting countries. This time
terror has succeeded in reaching the heart of America.
The Path to the Solution
The primary and most immediate question to be asked
is how do we get out of the current situation? The broader
question is how do we defuse the complicated problem
in the Land of Israel?
If we take a look at the history of the Palestinian
– Israeli relationships since 1967, we can see
a pattern. After the Six Day War came the first period
when Moshe Dayan attempted to establish a sensible Palestinian
leadership. The effort was unsuccessful because of the
threats to the life of such leaders by the Palestinian
Liberation Organization (PLO). In this way Israel suffered
its first failure in its first approach to the problem.
Since then, Israel has fought against the PLO and has
caused them serious damage. However, the Palestinian
masses were ignored throughout this long period and
the first Intifada broke out. It placed Israel’s
achievements against the terror in a shadow of the threats
of the extreme Hamas becoming the leading power within
the Palestinians. This was a failure in the second approach
of Israel to the problem.
The result was the necromancy of the PLO and the signing
of the Oslo Agreements. This third approach failed as
well, as was seen more recently.
At this state of affairs many different parties are
suggesting solutions to the problem which rightfully
so are not convincing to the other parties. The simple
minded approaches of the past – continuing the
Oslo process and establishing a Palestinian state, ongoing
war against terror, or unilateral withdrawal by Israel,
all ignore the complexity of the problem. Hence these
should not be simply repeated since they have already
been proven ineffective.
Another possibility to get out of this situation is
by means of a world-encompassing event – a worse
conflict in some other place or a horrible natural disaster,
which will attract the attention of the world. However,
we have already been in that scenario more than once:
The problems in Yugoslavia bought some relative silence
to the Middle East, until they were reduced, and the
attention returned to the Middle East.
The Gulf War shocked the world and ended the first
Intifada, but as a result we got the Oslo Agreements
and today’s dreadful stalemate, which is worse
than the conditions before Oslo.
The attack on the Twin Towers only intensified the
problem. On one hand, Israel did not remain alone in
the war against terrorism, but on the other hand, in
order to garner the support of the moderate Arabs, the
US, let alone Europe, pressure Israel to grant concessions
and expose itself to terror again, which when aimed
at Israel, becomes legitimate in the eyes of many.
The conclusion arrived at from this difficult situation,
is that we cannot wait for another major worldwide war
or disaster in order to solve the problem of the Land
of Israel. When going in this direction there is no
point in simply repeating the past failed solutions.
A combination of basic solutions in various doses can
actualize a path to a solution.
The combination of the war on terror and providing
of rights to the Palestinians was tried a number of
times in recent years although not methodically or consistently.
Actually, this combination was supposed to be the basis
for the Oslo Agreements, while the war on terror was
supposed to be managed by the great terrorist, the “Capo
di tutti Capi” in the words of General Zini. However,
this mistake that was obvious to those who kept their
eyes and ears open, became one big failure: on one hand
nothing was ever done to lessen the hatred, and on the
other hand Arafat proved to be a major crook with no
hope for change.
The intention of giving assets to the Palestinians
through the Oslo Agreements (territory, weapons etc.)
was to weaken their hatred. However, for various reasons
(Israeli hysteria, demonstration of Israeli weakness
against Hizbullah, Israel’s ignoring serious breaches
on the part of the Palestinians, and mainly Arafat’s
behavior) the Palestinians interpreted, many times rightfully,
the Israeli gestures as weakness. In this manner, the
gestures, when combined with the constant aggression
by Arafat and his partners and with the suffering that
Arafat forced Israel to inflict on his people in the
second Intifada – instead of lessening the hatred,
they increased it severely.
What is necessary now is a new element in the combined
solution to the problem, one that will center on the
lowering of the level of hatred effectively and not
by a way of gestures that will worsen the situation.
This element demands getting to the root of a just solution
to the problem. There is no way to avoid this issue
- all of Israel’s attempts to avoid the issue
over the years only worsened the situation. The only
side who profited from this are the terrorists whose
ability to hurt Israel has reached a new record.
The element referred to is connected also to the Israeli
public relations, which has a deciding factor in the
struggle of Israel’s for peace, for security and
more important – for the unity of the people of
Israel and Israel’s long term existence. In order
to succeed in the current conflict Israel must substantially
improve its arguments. The more the people of Israel
are convinced of their rightfulness, the better are
their chances of winning in this struggle. The more
the world is convinced of the rightfulness of Israel’s,
the more Israel will be able to act with determination
in routing out terror. The less the Palestinians are
convinced of the rightfulness of terror and its chances
to succeed, the quicker terror will be extinguished.
However, from where do we enlist new elements? Many
good people have scavenged in every possible source
and have not come up with any new effective elements.
Time is pressing and we cannot drag the matter out any
longer. As such, if a good element exists, it must be
now dealt with and exposed.
When it seems that we have reached a dead end, as we
currently have, there is no choice – we have to
break prejudice and break out of existing thinking patterns.
This is not a trivial process. Usually it is bound by
the ability to let go of brainwashing that has gone
on for years. Whether the brainwashing has occurred
as a result of positive or negative intentions is unimportant.
The importance is actually in the existence of patterns
of thought that it has created.
The reader of this document must be open minded and
patient, in order to accept a revolutionary premise,
which has on one hand received serious strengthening
of late, and on the other hand its importance is increasing
for lack of any other viable solution. Acceptance of
this premise could have been much easier once its benefits
are clarified. However, as a result of the current thinking
convention it may be even difficult to many to realize
that some of the benefits are really benefits. Since
the problem is exceptionally complicated, its solution
demands sophisticated treatment. Hence our request for
the reader’s patience and openness.
Israel’s stand on the Palestinian question has
always been defensive, except for when dealing with
terror. By granting legitimacy to the terrorists in
the auspices of the Oslo Agreements and the continued
support for Arafat by the European community even now,
even an aggressive public relations effort regarding
terror is no longer as effective.
The latest peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians
failed as a result of the Palestinians using the subject
of the “Right of Return” stemming from the
historical rights of the Palestinian refugees. In light
of the Palestinians basing their position and rights
on historical justice, Israel must provide reasonable
answers to this angle. Israel must deviate from its
conventional way of thinking regarding the entire problem.
This, in conjunction with wise military activities,
can get Israel, the Palestinians and the entire region
out of the current complicated scenario.
Israel’s stand on the struggle in the recent
years is based upon the views of their rights versus
the rights of the Palestinians. Within this arena, it
is difficult for Israel to achieve its goals. As will
be explained further, a sizeable portion of the Palestinians
living in the land, have rights to the land, no less
than those of the Jews. However, instead of struggling
with these rights, Israel should use them to its own
benefit, by exposing the historical truth in the Land
of Israel, as will also be explained further.
Israel should change the focus of the struggle over
the rights to the Land of Israel from one of an Israeli
– Palestinian perspective to that of an Israeli
– Arab one. In this perspective, Israel’s
stand is far superior.
Part II –
The Premise
The Basis to the Premise
The basis to the premise explained here are the historical
facts related to the Land of Israel over the last two
thousand years. These facts, that are usually ignored,
present the history in a view different than what is
accepted, with far reaching consequences to the present
and the future.
The unique historical view has been raised in the past
by the fathers of Zionism in the Land of Israel –
David Ben Gurion and Yitzchak Ben Zvi, in a book they
wrote about 90 years ago, for the purpose of presenting
the rightfulness of the Zionist movement. For several
different reasons, which will be delineated further,
the subject was then dropped. However, today when the
situation in the area has reached a dead end and while
this theory has received strengthening from recent genetic
researches done on the Israeli and Palestinian communities,
we must pay this view a revisit.
The history of the last 2000 years seems very far removed
from the problems of the present. The need to redefine
it stems from the complexity of the problem and the
lack of a solution. Just as in the psychoanalysis of
a difficult case, one must delve far enough into the
past in order to find the roots of the present problem.
There are many incidents, which could only be solved
by this approach. In our case the problem is –
how do two nations rightfully see the same land as belonging
to them, and how do we get out of this situation? Following
are the main points of the historical explanation:
Prior to the destruction of the Second Temple the people
of Israel comprised a much larger portion of the world
population than it does today. At that time there were
about three million Jews in the Land of Israel. In addition,
there were Jews in Babylon who had remained there since
the destruction of the first Temple. These figures also
disregard the majority of the people of the ten tribes
of Israel who were a portion of the remaining population
of the world known during that period. The entire population
of the world at that time totaled only tens of millions.
In other words, the Jewish population in the Land of
Israel alone comprised a single digit percent of the
entire world population. Today, the entire Jewish population
around the globe comprises only a few thousandths of
the world population – their relative numbers
have dwindled to approximately a tenth of what their
numbers were 2000 years ago.
The explanation to the dwindling of the relative numbers
of Jews in the world over the last two thousand years
is as follows:
About two third of the people were killed or exiled
by the Romans over several generations as part of their
crushing of the repetitive Jewish rebelling. Over the
last two thousand years out of the remaining Jews in
exile, some were forced to convert or converted by will
due to the repeated problems they faced, some were annihilated,
and the remainder is the majority of the existing Jews
today.
The remainder of the people of Israel after the destruction
and devastation created by the Romans – the weak
classes, who were at a low risk for rebelling against
them, were permitted by the Romans to stay. Many of
them were also forced to convert and some were annihilated.
The component of Jews remaining here is miniscule.
The forced conversions in the Land of Israel began
with the Greek rule – the manifestation of Hellenism.
However, the main occurrences of these conversions began
with the activities and decrees of the Romans in the
period of the rise of Christianity.
As a result of the cruel Roman crushing of the several
Jewish rebellions, whose relative severity is even higher
then that of the Holocaust, the demographics of the
Land changed drastically. From a situation where the
three million Jews were a definitive majority in the
land, their numbers dwindled to one million, such that
they comprised only 40% of the inhabitants of western
part of land of Israel (west to the Jordan river) and
only 30% in all of the historic Land of Israel (including
parts of Jordan).
The remainder of the inhabitants of western part of
Israel at that time were mainly Samaritans, Roman soldiers,
Hellenists and various sects of Christians – many
of them were Jews at the onset.
As far as the Samaritans are concerned – we must
point out that according to Benjamin Tsadka’s
book (A Brief History of the Samaritans) their majority
were descendants of the weak classes of the ten tribes
of Israel who were never exiled by the Assyrians at
the time before the destruction of the First Temple.
Other Samaritans were descendants of the stronger classes
of Cuthites, who were exiled to Israel by the Assyrians
but most of them returned to their homelands at the
fall of the Assyrian empire.
At the time of the Hasmonean kingdom anyone who was
not a Jew or Hellenist was converted to Judaism. In
addition, the Greeks, who arrived during their conquest
of the land, were thrown out by the Hasmoneans during
the process of liberation from the Greeks. In a similar
manner, no other nations remained within the borders
of the Land of Israel such as the Philistines.
From the conclusion of Bar-Kochva’s rebellion
and until the end of the Roman and Christian rule in
the Land of Israel, as the pressures to convert to Christianity
increased and the leadership of the Jews was annihilated,
so the number of Jews who maintained their religion
dwindled. These remained centered mainly in the Galilean
villages and in few cities, while others could not stand
the pressure and became Christians. In spite of this,
the number of Jews who remained at the end of this era
was substantial. In Caesarea alone, with the Arab conquest
(around the year 640), 200,000 Jews were found dwelling
along side 700,000 Romans – most of them connected
to the Roman army, and likewise 30,000 Samaritans.
The next conquest – Arab – with its many
metamorphoses used economic and other pressures on those
living here, in order to convert them to Islam. This
crushed the hopes of the Jews who thought that the end
of the Christian rule would bring them freedom in their
country.
The Jewish hopes at the beginning of the Islamic rule
caused many Jews to immigrate to the Land of Israel,
including those who were driven out of the Arabian Peninsula.
The hopes, became over the years a grave disappointment.
Any Jew or Christian who did not convert to Islam were
taxed a fifth of all of their produce, without taking
into consideration any of his expenses. Anyone who converted
was exempt from paying this tax. In addition, there
was tremendous discrimination to the benefit of Moslems
in matters of other taxes, levies, rights, licenses
and purchasing of goods by the authorities. Many decrees
and disturbances were carried out against the Jews from
time to time.
The peak was in the year 1012, when the Halif Hakam
decreed that anyone who did not embrace Islam must leave
the country. In other words, every Jew or Christian
was given the option: “ Convert or Leave”.
As a result of the pressures that reached their peak
with this decree, the majority of the population, in
a slow process over the hundreds of years of conquest,
converted. Because of the suffering and lack of leadership
– the vast majority converted, including those
who till then had remained Jews such as in the Galilean
villages, such as those who earlier on were forced to
Hellenize or convert to Christianity, and others who
lived in Israel such as the Samaritans.
The converts to Islam in the Land of Israel during
that long period were known as “Mustaarvim”
(Arabized). These were Jews at their roots and passed
this identity on from generation to generation and secretly
practiced some Jewish customs. This was the source of
the name given to them literally meaning “Hidden
as an Arabs”.
Over the generations the connection to Judaism and
the Hebrew language has been diluted. In spite of this,
when the settlement of the Jews was re-established in
the 19th century, the term “Mustaarvim”
remained and referred to those who hid their Jewishness
and did not leave the land. As a result, the remaining
original Jews in Jerusalem who neither left the land
nor their Judaism, remained the only ones in the new
era who were called “Mustaarvim” (as opposed
to the Jews who newly arrived in Jerusalem). In other
words, the term that initially described almost the
entire population was left only with those that both
kept over the many generation the Jewish practice in
secret and were not afraid to reestablish themselves
as Jews when a less risky opportunity was given to them.
With the conquest by the Crusaders, the majority of
the Jews of Jerusalem were massacred after fighting
to defend the city on the side of the Moslems. In spite
of this, the Crusaders were relatively easy on the Jews
in their land, much easier than the European’s
treatment of the Jews. This treatment included the Crusader’s
behavior towards the European Jews mainly in the beginning
of the first crusade. Therefore many Jews emigrated
from Europe with the help of seaworthy transportation
to Israel that was developing in those days by the Crusaders.
Near the end of the Crusaders’ rule the Jewish
center moved to Acre. The Moslems recaptured this city,
when again the Jews joined forces for its defense, and
once again most were massacred by the conquerors.
The above characterized what happened to the Jews in
Israel under various conquerors. The Moslems and Christians
were hurt intermittently depending on whose turn it
was to play conqueror. The Jews almost always suffered.
The period of the Crusades included a number of Holy
Wars and opposing conquering by the Moslems –
parts of the Land of Israel changed hands several times.
During the Arab rule many Arabs migrated from neighboring
countries, mainly Bedouins from the Arabian Peninsula.
This happened at the same time that many Jews left because
of decrees against them. At the time of the Crusades,
just like periods prior to the Arab conquests, Christians
arrived from Europe. Because of the non-stop war in
the Land of Israel, beginning with the first Crusades
and ending with the Mamalouk rule and its crumble, security
and economy disintegrated. To make matters worse, there
were plagues and earthquakes. As a result of all of
this, the majority of the immigrants plus a marked number
of the original inhabitants left.
The Moslems who made up a large part of the immigrants
to the land, as well as among the permanent residents,
just like the small minority who officially kept their
Judaism, emigrated to neighboring countries. To show
the level of immigration out of the country - in approximately
the year 1400 there were still 600,000 “Mustaarvim”
– mostly descendants of Jews. In contrast, with
the Ottoman conquer (1517), not more than 150,000 inhabitants
remained, of which 5,000 were practicing Jews. A smashing
majority were converts to Islam.
As a result of the stabilization of the Ottoman rule
in the Land of Israel, and the return of order and security,
within a short period of time until the mid 1500’s
the population doubled – and reached approximately
300,000. This increase stemmed from immigration, mainly
from neighboring countries. Since the Land of Israel
was not then a major attraction to immigrants, and the
subject of religion was not at its peak, it can be assumed
that the immigrants that did arrive were original inhabitants
who were returning home.
Others, new immigrants, had nothing to look for in
Israel during this period. The original residents had
a historical connection to the land and a continued
loyalty to it. The exceptions were on one hand, the
negligible in size Bedouin minority part of them were
of Jewish origin, a small number of Mamalouk exiles,
and few others.
In parallel, there was an Aliyah of thousands of Jews
who after the Spanish Inquisition hoped that the end
of the Arab rule would enable Jewish prosperity in the
Holy Land. The Turkish rule, as opposed to that of the
Arabs or Crusaders, did not bring with them Turkish
settlers, and based itself upon the existing population
as a source for payment of taxes and funding of the
military, its officers and rulers.
The period from the end of the Mamalouk rule and the
beginning of the Ottoman rule is paramount in the history
of the Land of Israel. Like rats in a sinking ship –
anyone whose connection to the land was not strong enough
left it permanently. Anyone, whose economic or educational
status enabled him to make his way to other countries,
abandoned the land. The minority from the original population
returned or remained, as they were not willing to give
up their connection to the land. These were mainly descendants
of Jews - the centrality of the life of this community
was the land and their loyalty to it.
The Jewish settlement at that time was centered in
Safed. In addition, in various Galilean settlements
(13 of them) mostly villages, Jewish families lived
side by side with Moslems. The most reasonable explanation
that in one village they lived side by side was that
the Moslem families originally belonged to those Arabized
who were originally Jews.
Later, as a result of the pressures of the Turkish
Moslem rule, similar to those of the Christian and Arab
rules, these Jewish families disappeared as well, and
it is reasonable to imagine that they went the way of
the Arabized. Until today there’s a Jewish cemetery
in Kfar Yasif near Acre, with gravestones dating to
the 18th and 19th centuries, in spite of the fact that
there are no Jews living there.
The Jewish hope for redemption with the end of the Arab
rule was even higher than at the end of the earlier
Christian rule (not the Crusaders). The disillusionment
was similar. However, during the period where the hopes
for redemption increased and so after the Spanish Inquisition,
thousands of Jews arrived in Israel and settled in Safed.
Villagers from the area moved to the city in order to
prosper from the Jews who were sustained by donations
from abroad and by their weaving (the Jews had 3,000
looms in the city).
Jewish leaders rose and called for the renewed settling
of the Land of Israel. Even more so, David the Reuveni
called for the establishment of a Jewish army in order
to rebel against the Turks. For tens of years the Jews’
hopes rose and fell intermittently until they were finally
depressed.
An incredible thing happened in Safed in the mid 1500’s.
The number of Jews in Safed around 1560 according to
one report was 70,000 and another report quoted 12,000
while the source for both reports was the same. According
to another report, the Jewish population in the entire
Galilee numbered 40,000. In 1568 2,000 Jews were reported
to be in Safed – mainly elderly who came from
the Diaspora to finish off their lives in Safed. A little
later 14,000 were reported.
Even if we assume that the 70,000 figure was in error
or that it mistakenly referred to Safed instead of the
entire Galilee, the differences are amazing and cannot
be easily explained. It is not inconceivable that with
all the pride in the hopes of the redemption, many of
the Arabized Jews suddenly “remembered”
their Judaism and hoped for a quick redemption. With
the depression of these hopes, as a result of persecution
by the Turks and other problems, these Jews “remembered”
their Islam in order to be saved from the various decrees.
With the worsening of the decrees of the Napa rule
that included Safed, the Jewish center moved to Jerusalem.
Some of the Jews moved to neighboring countries or returned
to the distant Diaspora, some moved to Jerusalem and
the villagers who had moved to the city moved back to
their villages.
Over the next 300 years, the population did not change,
which also shows that the earlier return to the land
was only of those loyal to it, as long as there still
were any. In 1840, there were in the country 10,000
practicing Jews, 25,000 Christians and 270,000 Moslems,
almost unchanged from the mid 1500’s. The exceptions
were thousands of Egyptian railway workers who were
brought to the land in the period of 1831-36.
In the next 160 years immigrants from neighboring countries
joined the population, mainly from Syria and Egypt,
who were added to the now called Palestinians, in addition
to Jews from all over the world. In 1882 there were
24,000 practicing Jews, 45,000 Christians and 380,000
Moslems (total 450,000).
The increase in the number Moslems relative to 1840,
even if influenced by natural population growth was
based mostly on the migration of Arab Moslem immigrants
– about 100,000. Even if we add the Christians
among whom few were Arabs, the non-Jewish immigration
was not more than 120,000 people. However, according
to a number of testimonies, including of those who in
1967 were living in the area of Hebron, some of the
immigrants were tribes from the Arabian Peninsula who
prior to this were Jews who had converted to Islam and
still retained their connection to the land.
In 1914 the Jews numbered between 85,000 and 100,000
of a total population numbering 700,000, mostly in the
western part of the Land of Israel. In order to arrive
at this number, even if we take into account a modest
natural population growth, which is not characteristic
of the Palestinians, approximately 190,000 additional
Arabs migrated (Moslems and Christians), while the number
of Moslems immigrants was smaller.
In 1922, in both the eastern and western portions of
the Land of Israel there were 650,000 Arabs. However,
in 1938, their numbers increased to over one million.
The immigrants came to Israel as a result of prosperity
(sources of income) created by the Jewish settlement.
At the beginning of the War of Independence of Israel
the Arab population within the Green Line was about
860,000 and from both sides of the Jordan River was
approximately 1,200,000. One can assume from these figures
that on the western part of the land they numbered about
one million. It is reasonably sure that these figures
were inflated by the rulers of the British Mandate,
who looked for a demographic justification for their
refusal to uphold the Balfour Declaration.
Even if we accept the above figures as reliable, out
of the increase of 400,000 in the western part relative
to 1914, about 300,000 Arabs immigrated to the western
part of Israel. The balance of the increase stemmed
from a natural population growth as a result of the
improved medical treatment that began during this period.
The British did not impede the Arab immigration. This,
by the way, was in direct contradiction with the mandate
of the Commonwealth of Nations that was handed down
to the British regarding the establishment of a Jewish
homeland in the Land of Israel. They did not block the
Arabs crossing the borders on land, while at the same
time they prevented the Jewish refugees, including holocaust
refugees, from arriving by sea.
Therefore, the total number of Arab immigrants to the
western part of the Land of Israel was approximately
600,000 (120,000 + 190,000 + 300,000) as compared to
a little less than 300,000 original inhabitants from
an earlier period. This is based upon an assumption
of almost zero population growth before WWI. However,
we can take into account the difference of the natural
population growth of the original inhabitants as opposed
to the immigrants in the period before the British rule,
since they were in the majority for most of the period.
Hence we can approximate the number of original inhabitants
vs. the immigrants among the Palestinians in the western
portion of the Land of Israel to 35% original inhabitants
vs. 65% immigrants, as of the year 1948.
Beginning from that year many of the Palestinians refugees
scattered over the neighboring countries. Their population
today in the western portion of the Land of Israel is
approximately 4,000,000 (including the Israeli citizens
among them). The Palestinians claimed about 10 years
ago that there were about 10 million Palestinians in
the world. It seems that the 10 million figure was an
exaggeration meant to be used threateningly to the Jews
of Israel, and the correct figure was actually considerably
smaller. (For similar reasons the Palestinians are inflating
the population figure in the western part of the Land
of Israel). If we accept a more conservative present
number of only 9,000,000, the Palestinians in western
part of the Land of Israel comprise about 45% of the
total number of Palestinians, and the balance who live
in other places – 55%.
Although there are no specific details as to which
of today’s Palestinians are of the immigrants
and who are descendants of the original settlers of
the land we can assume statistically that, “Once
an immigrant, always an immigrant.” That is to
say, the probability is greater that whoever’s
family was true to the land for thousands of years,
will continue in this tradition of remaining in the
land at any price, just as whoever’s family was
used to moving around will continue more easily in this
tradition. Until today the Palestinian villagers’
strong connection to the land is well known. In contrast
to this, it is also known that at the time of the War
of Independence of Israel, for example, many of those
living in Jaffa and the surrounding Arab settlements
that arrived at the most 127 years earlier from Egypt,
fled back to Egypt and other places.
Moreover, It were the Arab countries that called upon
the Palestinians in the face of fights and hostilities
in 1948 to temporary move to more secure areas until
their armies will crush the Jews. Naturally the newer
settlers that originated from the Arab countries and
had strong bonds with these countries and relatives
there listened and fled away. In contrast the original
habitants whose ancestors got already used to wars and
new conquerors, naturally ignored the call to flee from
their beloved land.
It is clear that some portion of the population is
of mixed ancestry, in spite of the fact that the majority
of the original inhabitants were villagers or mountaineers.
These largely married within or among the other villages
or within their towns. This was especially true prior
to 1948, when the roads and methods of transportation
were not yet developed. Even if we take the post 1948
period, then in the part after 1967 which is its bigger
portion, movement from the western part of the land
to Arab countries was not trivial and cross border marriages
were numbered.
Likewise, one must remember that there were Arab immigrants
who were originally descendant from Jewish tribes in
the Arabian Peninsula, that as a result of their love
for the land, there is a strong possibility that they
did not flee during the 1848 and 1967 wars.
On the other hand, on the West Bank and in the Gaza
Strip the immigrants did not need to flee during the
War of Independence and these areas absorbed refugees
from Israel (approximately 400,000 in 1948). However,
from among those that fled and stayed in refugee camps
in West Bank, and likewise from among the regular inhabitants
of that area, 300,000, mainly original refugees, fled
to Jordan in 1967.
In a similar manner, there is no real data on who of
those living in Land of Israel are descendants of Jews
and who is not, but one must remember the majority of
Jews and more so of the people of Israel (Jews and Samaritans)
who were in the land before the beginning of the 2,000
years of suffering. It must be further remembered that
the relative majority of immigrants to the Land of Israel
over the generations, that arrived because of the countries
benefits and holiness, they and their descendants fled
during the many turnovers of authority and other disasters.
To summarize al the above, it seems reasonable then
that among the Palestinians who live in the western
part of the Land of Israel there is a large number who
are descendants of the original inhabitants. Similarly,
among the Palestinian refugees there is a large majority
of immigrants and their descendants. To put it in numbers,
one can easily estimate that about 30% of the original
35% inhabitants out of the Palestinians in 1948 were
descendants of Jews or more accurately the people of
Israel. Furthermore, about 70% of the Palestinians of
then were immigrants who arrived over the generations,
or their descendants. Among these 70%, 65% immigrated
after 1831. The relevance of this is, assuming a constant
birth rate among the Palestinians in different places,
that 2/3 (30% of the 45%) of the Palestinians living
in western part of the Land of Israel today are descendants
of the people of Israel. In contrast to this, among
the Palestinians not living in Israel today (55% of
all Palestinians) a very large majority are of the immigrants
and their descendents.
In his book, “The Oslo Alternative”, attorney
Aylon Yarden arrived at very similar conclusions based
on the idea that was very thoroughly examined by him.
His exact premise is that the mountain dwellers of the
Land of Israel, in the Galilee, Judea, and Samaria,
were those who hardly moved over thousands of years.
On the other hand, according to Yarden, the various
immigrants that came to the country over thousands of
years, settled in the lowlands, valleys and plains.
Sometimes threw out the people who were there first.
Other times they joined those who lived there. Regardless
they settled there for a certain period and finally
continued on their way to other countries for various
reasons. The Palestinians who live in the Triangle (west
to the mountains of Samaria) include a mixture of immigrants
and original inhabitants from the mountainous areas,
who searched for a livelihood close to the center of
the new Jewish settlements where jobs and living could
have been found.
The Premise and Its Validity
What is clear from basic statistical assumptions and
reasonability, is that a very high majority of the 3,000,000
Palestinians who are today on the western part of the
Land of Israel except for the Gaza Strip, are descendants
of people of Israel (mainly Jews). Even if we add the
Gaza Strip to the picture, we still arrive at a 2/3
majority descending from the people of Israel.
It is even clearer that the rights of the Palestinians
who are descendants of Arab immigrants that remained
in the land (1/3) are at best 171 years old (1831-2002)
and even much less for the majority of them. These rights
are negligible in contrast to those of the people of
Israel and the original inhabitants, which are of thousands
of years old.
By virtue of these assumptions, it is even clearer
that a large majority of the Palestinians outside of
the western part of the Land of Israel have virtually
no rights to the land (at the most, less than 140 years
from 1831 – 1967).
This is the summary of the premise. This premise was
known in general by a number of key people for many
years, including the founding fathers of Zionism in
the land of Israel, but rested as an unturned stone.
The innovation in this presentation is in the level
of specifics and explanation brought forward in illustrating
the premise, based on logical assumptions, and statistically
high probabilities.
The probability of the accuracy of the premise is far
greater than the Palestinian claim based on their ancient
rights, as though they were descendants of the Canaanites
and other nations that lived in the Land of Israel prior
to the conquering of the land by Joshua. The biblical
description of the elimination of these nations, aside
from the small group of Givonites, absolutely neutralizes
this Palestinian claim. This is true even if we assume
that the Book of Joshua is slightly exaggerated regarding
the successes of wars of the people of Israel. However,
none of this can remove the any doubt about the correctness
of the claim presented here as result of its being based
to a large extent on assumptions despite of them being
very reasonable.
What has recently aided the premise, are two genetic
studies that were published lately. One of these genetic
studies, which was done in part by Prof. Ariella Oppenheim
of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, was published
in part in the spring of 2000 and its continuation on
November 21, 2001 in the “HaAretz” Israeli
newspaper.
The findings were very clear and could stand on their
own merit. However, combined with the historical premise
they receive tremendous importance. In the study that
was done on the Y chromosome, a very close match was
found between the Palestinians and the Jews, similar
to the match found between various sects of Jews who
were found to match closely relative to the genetic
differences among other nations. It was found that the
Ashkenazi Jews were genetically similar to Palestinians,
much closer than to “other” Arabs, and likewise
there are close to Jews of Middle Eastern descent and
to Kurds.
The above findings do not only strengthen the historical
premise presented here but also negate the Arab claims
that the Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of the Kazars
and therefore have no historical rights to the Land
of Israel.
Another relevant genetic study was published recently.
Its publicity increased as a result of the periodical,
“Human Immunology”, in which it was printed,
instructing its readers to destroy the article because
of the political issues that the researcher inserted
into the article. In this study, which was performed
on the immune system, the Spanish Prof. Antonio Arniz-Vilna
of the University of Complotensa in Madrid and his colleagues
found that the immune systems of Jews and Palestinians
are so close that they strongly indicate a genetic similarity.
These two studies provide the premise with strong backing.
These genetic backings of the premise are most significant
since they lessen the doubt of its accuracy to almost
insignificant. (The surprising genetic closeness of
the Ashkenazi Jews to the Kurds can be explained by
the exile of the tribes of Israel at the time of the
First Temple to the Kurd area of today, which at that
time was close to the center of the Assyrian empire.)
The importance of these studies is the fact that they
were publicized prior to the raising of the premise
and are therefore very far from being affected by the
premise support or objection. The Spanish scientist
went so far as to come to anti-Israeli conclusions that
brought about the instructions to destroy the article.
However, the premise, just like Bilam’s donkey,
changed the curse to a blessing.
The above is especially important, since in order to
deny the premise, Israel’s enemies may fund inexact
studies that are deceiving and they will fund people
in the scientific community, especially in some European
counties, to cooperate with them, just like the lines
of activity of Mengele and his partners that supported
Hitler’s racist theories.
One must also add pointed testimonials such as that
of a Samaritan historian, Ratson Tsadka about an old
Arab woman that lived in the 20th century in the village
of Koofar in the Tul Karem area (Koofar - from the word
“kofrim” (agnostics) that the Arabs named
it after the Jews that lived there in the past). That
woman’s mother taught her to light candles in
hiding every Friday night and she was exercising it
in a valley near the village.
Another source is the author Yehuda Burla in his book,
“In the Eye of a Star”. It is about the
writer’s service as an officer in the Turkish
army and of his “Arab” servant from the
land of Israel. The latter had heard from the writer
of an Arab custom in the land of Israel to cut off Jewish
women’s breast in order to prevent the Jews from
being able to continue their existence in future generations.
He understood from this that his mother who suffered
from this disability was Jewish.
Another case is of the Muhamara clan from the village
of Yata (near Hebron) and another village where they
perform a custom without knowing why, until today, of
lighting candles on Hanukkah. Their neighbors refer
to them as Yahud (Jews) and in 1967 sent them to their
brothers to get water for the village.
Likewise, a number of the residents of the triangle
perform the Jewish custom of Tashlich. More evidence,
circumstantial in nature, is the spoken Hebrew accent
and the use of phrases whose source is Hebrew, by “Arabs”
in the Galilean villages such as Sachnin and Arabeh.
The lawyer Aylon Yarden raises another direction for
the support of the premise. It is the essence of the
problem itself – there is no precedence anywhere
in the world where two totally separate nations believe
and claim that exactly an entire and same land is theirs.
Many local disputes exist and have existed in the world;
Kashmir, Northern Ireland, the Balkan Peninsula, Kurdistan,
Armenia and many more. Most of them are based on religion
and not nationality (Kashmir and Northern Ireland) or
between one nation within its territory and another
within it territory where a dispute exists regarding
the border location. Alternatively it is about the independence
of one of the nations (Armenia, Kurdistan, the Balkan
Peninsula) in part of the territory of another one.
As a result of the exclusivity of the problem in the
Land of Israel, one can claim, based on the support
presented above, that if two nations claim for exactly
the same land, it is a reasonable assumption that these
two nationalities are not really so different.
If someone tries to compare the case of Yugoslavia
to that of Israel, he must have forgotten why the Camp
David summit blew up. The uniqueness of this case is
that the two sides believe that all of the land is theirs
and any attempt at coming to an agreement over a division
of the land in any way failed. (An additional difference,
not connected to our current issue is that there is
a third party relating to the Israeli case – the
Arab countries that created the problem when they conquered
the land in the past. They see the Palestinians as brothers
and are a grave danger to the security of Israel in
the event of territorial compromise with tremendous
concessions.)
The reasons that the premise presented here disappeared
until now stems on one hand from those who returned
to the land at the beginning of Zionism pushed it into
a corner. On the other hand this occurred because of
the large number of generations that elapsed since the
conversion to Islam. This coupled with the strong Arab
influence that was amplified by the Arab language that
became mother tongue to all the Palestinians, caused
a many of Palestinians to forget or ignore their roots.
The Jews that were the first to return to the land
were of an Eastern European mentality and culture, totally
different from that of the Palestinians and Arab mentality
and culture. This caused an unwillingness to believe
in any close relationship. This situation roots itself
and rules in the minds of the Israelis and Palestinians
until today and holds a central part in the hatred between
the two sides.
At that period historians began to examine folk legends
about the
relationship stemming from the premise. More than 100
years ago Israel Belkind assembled evidence, wrote and
taught that the Arabs in the country were in fact blood
brothers of the Jews. But both the religious and Zionist
establishments rejected his views.
The rejection came mainly since the Jews were a minority
in the land at the beginning opposite the large Palestinian
majority of the same period, making the premise known
to the general public was a problem from a cultural
standpoint. In other words, which of the cultures would
overpower and swallow the other. As a result of the
demographic relationship and the unwillingness of the
Zionists to delve into the Arabic culture, the idea
about the close relationship was unacceptable to many
and never took off.
David Ben Gurion and Yitzchak Ben Zvi were attracted
by the premise and found much to substantiate it. They
raised the premise in a joined book of theirs, primarily
in order to justify the Zionist movement, but also in
hopes that Jewish immigration (Aliyah) would change
the demographic situation and the Palestinians would
become a minority. However, as a result of the massive
Arab immigration simultaneously with the Jewish immigration
and the riots that increased the hatred, the situation
did not change and the subject was dropped.
When the land was divided following the War of 1948
and the number of Palestinians in the State was small
as compared to the flow of Jewish immigrants, the subject
did not receive new attention. The Israeli leadership
had to concentrate on the problems of a young country,
absorbing immigrants that lost all of their possessions,
merging exiles and struggling with Israel’s neighbors.
Jordan and Egypt covered the Palestinian problem under
the blanket of annexation of Palestinian territories.
The refugee problem was ignored due to lack of peace
negotiations and no one in Israel dedicated much further
thought to the issue. The only exception was David Ben
Gurion. He even advocated, as a beginning, a campaign
to draw the friendly Bedouins of the country back into
the fold of Judaism. Caught up by internal problems
including those mentioned above, he abandoned the project.
The many wars between Jews and Arabs increased the
mutual hatred, sharpened the differences and distanced
any thoughts of a close relationship between Jews and
what was an accepted portion of the Arabs. We must also
point out that in addition to all these; the revolutionary
approach towards the history of the people in the country
had no genetic support to add to its validity at that
time.
An additional reason for not having raised the premise
is the embarrassment of all the converts in the land
at the time of their forced conversions and the fact
that they were of a low economic and educational level
as well. Under this situation written evidence to the
process of conversion was not created at the time of
that process. Also the Arabs were not proud of the economic
and worse compulsion, and they were not interested in
leaving proof of their deeds and the fact that the inhabitants
in the land were not originally Arabs.
Another reason for ignoring the issue is that the history
curriculum for Israeli schools centers mostly on Europe
and its Jewry, even when speaking of the period prior
to the Arab conquest, and almost totally ignores the
Land of Israel and the region from this period and until
the start of the Zionist movement. The exception is
the crusaders, again with a European emphasis.
Regarding the question of which of Palestinians are
descendants of Jews, who is descendant from Arabs and
others – until today the Arabs have enjoyed ignorance
of the subject that is supported by the current reality
of the Palestinians. In spite of the fact that most
of the Palestinians in the western Land of Israel are
descendants of Jews, the continued Arab and Moslem conquest
in the land of Israel eradicated this fact from the
world.
It is about time to change this reality.
The Significance of the
Premise and Its Importance
The premise is supported from five different directions:
1. Historic – behavioral (explained here in detail)
2. Historic – geographic (Aylon Yarden)
3. Genetics
4. Customs
5. National - geographic (Aylon Yarden)
This strong support makes undisputable the fact that
among the people of Israel exist two groups: One that
left the land and remained faithful to their nation
and religion, and another that left their religion and
remained faithful to the land. Just like in the first
group there were few addendums of converts, in the second
group there were addendums of immigrants (even though
one can assume that the addendums in the second group
were many more).
The difference between the two manners of partial disconnection
from religion, nationality or land does not force each
group to see an enemy in the other. Such a hostile vision
is a tragedy that joins, during the last 100 years,
the tragedies and horrors that transpired to both groups
separately during the previous 1900 years. (The suffering
that was the inheritance of those living in the Land
of Israel since the destruction of the second temple,
and mainly because of the number of conquests and wars
that took place in the land, is not far from the suffering
of European Jewry; not including the Holocaust). The
only difference over the distant past is that in the
last 100 years the two groups are executing the continued
tragedy for themselves and for each other.
Over and above, anyone who thinks that in the existing
circumstances there can be true peace between the Jews
and Palestinians and between Jews and Arabs is sadly
mistaken. As long as the Arabs and Palestinians are
educated on a basis of hatred of the Israelis; as long
as they are jealous of Israel’s successes for
which the Palestinians are used as black laborers; the
bitterness will bring even in a formal peace situation,
| 