What We Can Learn By Studying the Lives of the Jews Who Went to Palestine in the 1920s





Donna Robinson Divine is Morningstar Family Professor of Jewish Studies and Professor of Government at Smith College and the author of Exiled in the Homeland: Zionism and the Return to Mandate Palestine (University of Texas Press).

Exiled in the Homeland: Zionism and the Return to Mandate Palestine, examines the immigration of Zionists to Palestine during the 1920s in years when their experiences were turned into myth and when their personal struggles to make the land of Israel their home were ignored. The Zionist project I survey in this book concentrates on the period when Jews believed that moving to Palestine lifted them up to a new kind of solidarity, moral development and social coherence. I have chosen the first decade of British rule [1919–1929] as the temporal borders for this study because it was a formative time for developing a Jewish national home and can hold up a mirror to Israel’s conventional nation-building narratives. Thus, I am able to show not only how Zionists settled into Palestine when resources were severely limited but also how much they relied on their visionary hopes and expectations when circumstances provided no cause for optimism. The 1920s—a coherent period from the point of view of British colonial policy and the development of Palestine’s Jewish community—affords an ideal opportunity to examine whether the encounter of Zionists with what they understood as the land of Israel lived up to their expectations and to reflect on both the accomplishments and shortcomings of the Zionist effort to mold a new national identity and to transform the Jewish people.

A scholarly engagement with the desires, values, decisions, and reflections of the early generations who created the economic and political structures for the Jewish state means following the individual men and women who crossed continents and seas to make Palestine their home. Immigration was a decisive element in the national life of Palestine’s Jews even though its nature and significance continue to puzzle scholars who seek to know it well. Immigration to the land of Israel was deemed, even by secular Zionists, a quasi-sacred act and was vaunted as a powerful idiom for legitimating the Zionist idea that Jews properly belonged in this ancient land. Migrations to the country followed patterns, and each cycle seemed to be touched with special significance and specific characteristics—labor Zionist idealism for the Third Wave or Aliyah (1919–23) and petty capitalism for the Fourth (1924–9). Conventional renditions of Israel’s pre-state history are typically organized around eras that supposedly accord not only with immigration cycles but also with the flow of the country’s history. When immigration was halted for one reason or another, recorded Zionist history, itself, seemed to be on ‘pause.’

The British Mandate, which provided Palestine with a geography, also supplied Jews with an incentive to project an image of a polity so stable and unified as to be worthy of sovereignty. But the immigrants most energized by Zionist visions were also those with the deepest engagement in Diaspora-based Zionist movements, and they often arrived in Palestine committed to diverse ideologies and more importantly, infused with quite different political cultures. These immigrants had more than a passing acquaintance with change as the organizations with which many were affiliated had often unleashed challenges to the inherited structures of authority in their Diaspora hometowns. Surprised, perhaps, by the range of “Zionisms,” immigrants had to be shocked by how much freer they were to imagine radical change than to produce it.

For many immigrants, Palestine presented a strange if not hostile environment far different from what they expected. Interaction among people and cultures was intense and fraught with the potential for suspicion and misunderstanding. Immigrants had to learn Hebrew and find work. In these quests, prospects would sometimes hinge on contacts established in hometown youth movements or with extended kin. Drawing a disproportionately large number of males, the Zionist community’s social structure in Palestine was not, initially at least, dominated by family units. A person’s passage to Palestine was sometimes made possible by parents left behind in the Diaspora. Respected movement leaders typically arrived with their friends or classmates rather than with parents or siblings. Where immigration necessarily dissolved the warm embrace of families, Zionist terminology extended the intimacy of kinship to networks of comrades, friends, and neighbors.  But unlike families, these ties depended heavily on continuing to endorse a common set of political principles and to conform to a prescribed list of regulations. Deviation in thought or behavior could dissolve relationships or turn comrades into enemies. No wonder that leaving the country—even if provoked by starvation and illness—grew to be interpreted as an act of treason. Even when viewed with sympathy, emigration was often felt as a form of personal betrayal.

Finally, British sovereignty over Palestine meant that mandatory policies set the course of nation-building in Palestine for Jews as well as for Arabs. Failing to bring Jews and Arabs together in a unified countrywide legislative framework, mandate rulers authorized the creation of institutions with limited autonomy by downgrading the two communities from national to religious entities. Although Zionists originally intended Jewish nation-building to supply the passion and experience to detach Jews from their religious roots, they were impeded in their battle for a secular public realm by the very structure of mandatory rule in Palestine. Zionists could operate their institutions only because, on some level, they accepted the classification of Jews as one of Palestine’s recognized religious groupings although that rubric contradicted the founding principles of their movement. Throughout this book, I try to make visible the differences between Zionist prescriptions and Zionist policies while indicating how the development of a Jewish National Home both complicated and changed that relationship.

In one sense, the people whose lives I examine are not ordinary; they left a written record of their ideas, feelings, and experiences in memoirs, essays, and newspaper articles. But in another sense, these were the ordinary people living in Palestine’s Jewish community whose thoughts and actions shaped and consolidated the Jewish national home while their lives offered up selective material used to sustain Zionism’s progressive narrative. By examining the gap between the expectations and experiences of Zionists in what they deemed their rightful homeland, I am deliberately taking an unconventional approach. Instead of replicating the conventional wisdom and thinking about Zionist immigrants in purely sequential terms, I want to discuss their lives as a series of graded examples on a visionary spectrum moving from those possessed of the ambition for radical personal and national transformation to those motivated by the dream of simply finding a better life.

Both the Zionist discourse on immigration and the actual immigrant experiences shaped Palestine’s Jewish community and prepared it for statehood. Exiled in the Homeland explores these often contradictory state-making and nation-building trends and explains how movements of Jews could be viewed as both agents of renewal and sources of instability. The double-edged meaning of crossing borders did not begin in our age of globalization, but Palestine is a good place to examine the tensions unleashed by changes in population and by populations trying to change their understanding of where they truly belonged.


comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


omar ibrahim baker - 12/31/2009


Elliott plaintively asks :
" I don't know where Omar got his stats from."
There must also be, on top of "Doctrinally/ confessionally blinded or born blind " a case of physical blindness , or severe mental block, that fails to see the sources from which the "stats" were derived as very plainly affixed at the end of the stats.
( Doctrinally/ confessionally blinded or born blind? (#138805)
by omar ibrahim baker on December 25, 2009 at 3:47 AM)
Thse were:
"Sources & Notes:
Sources by Year:
1914 - 1918
Justin McCarthy The Population of Palestine, 1990
1922 & 1931
British Census (Census conducted by the British Mandate Government.)
1941
Esco Foundation Palestine: A Study of Jewish, Arab, and British Policies Vol. 1, p.46, Yale University Press, 1947
1944 Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry Chapter IV: Population, April 20, 1946
1946 United Nations General Assembly, A/364, "UNSCOP Report to the General Assembly," September 3, 1947 "


Elliott Aron Green - 12/30/2009

`Umar, I am happy to fill in any lack of references for Jerusalem's Jewish majority since 1853. But first, `Umar claims:

the unmistakeably Arab/Moslem dominant physical characteristics of the land ( Jerusalem's Old City, its Mosques and Churchs,Nablus',Jaffa's, Hebron's, Acre's etc etc )

First, Hebron. The Tomb of the Patriarchs is the dominant physical feature of Hebron. This building was built by King Herod of Judea in the Second Temple period. The time of building was established by structural similarities with the remains of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.

In Jerusalem, the dominant physical feature of the Old City is the Temple Mount, a product of King Herod of Judea in its present dimensions and below surface features, as well as remaining walls, steps, adjacent shops, water channels, ritual baths, and so on. Such remains of the ancient walls are visible on the west, east and south sides of the Temple Mount.

Another prominent physical feature of the Old City is the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, as well as other churches and monasteries. I trust that you don't claim the churches as Arab-Muslim artifacts. Moreover, according to Prof. Yehoshua Ben-Arieh, the Muslims were a minority in Jerusalem at the start of the 19th century and throughout it. Christians and Jews together outnumbered Muslims 200 years ago, before the Jews became an absolute majority circa 1850.

Now, Cesar Famin, a contemporary French historian and diplomat, reported a Jewish majority in the city as of 1853. Gerardy Santine reported this in his book published in 1860. Ben-Arieh calculates a Jewish majority as of 1870. The Baedeker guide to the city and other sources, including an Arab who worked for the survey of the country by the PEF [as I recall] and found a Jewish majority circa 1872.

As to the Old City, everybody lived in the Old City until about 1862. Robbers wandered the countryside at night, which is why the city gates were kept locked until about 1862. Furthermore, Ben-Arieh reports a Jewish majority in the Old City at the end of the 19th century. Omar may be right about the land area of the Jewish Quarter. Maybe it was only 18 or 20% of the Old City's land area. Nevertheless, they were a majority of the people there. Omar's fact proves how the Jews were crowded in and squeezed together in the Holy City in that period. That is, the Jews were oppressed in those days. To be sure, some Jews lived in the "Muslim Quarter" at that time, especially in houses close to the Temple Mount.

I don't know where Omar got his stats from. The Jewish population in the country is estimated at about 75,000 in 1914. This number went down drastically during the war because of mass deportations, as well as disease and starvation. That is, there were more Jews in the country in 1914 than in 1918.

So Omar, two of your points/claims in #138781 are refuted. You might want to redo your argument.


N. Friedman - 12/27/2009

Omar,

That is not what I wrote. Here are my exact words:

As for your argument about populations, who could care less?

In other words, I was not addressing majority opinion. I was addressing populations and, in particular, the movement of populations.

On the other hand, as I noted elsewhere, majority opinion very rarely, as a matter of fact, favors immigration, whether in a democracy or anywhere else. And, majority opinion is rather rarely consulted. What determines who can immigrate is nearly always the ruler although, where there is a lot of objection from the public, immigration can sometimes be slowed or channeled to the benefit one or another group.

In the US, there is now a movement opposing immigration, often illegal immigration but immigration nonetheless, by Hispanics. Your arguments are the same as the arguments by such opposition groups. By contrast, the position held by the establishment is that such opposition is dominated by racism. Such is particularly the view of liberals.

Were the matter left to majority opinion, there would be very little migration in the world. In other words, if it were left to the majority, tens of millions of Muslims would almost certainly have never been allowed into Europe and millions of Hispanics would never have been allowed into the US. And, that is primarily because people harbor racist views about immigrants.


omar ibrahim baker - 12/26/2009

My point is that you have with your own words demonstrated and proved the intrinsic RACISM of the Zionist cause by exclaiming:
"who could care less? " when talking about an other people's majority opinion ??


N. Friedman - 12/26/2009

Omar,

And your argument, other than hysterical assertions, is what? I have no idea what your point is.


N. Friedman - 12/26/2009

Omar,

I do not defend Israel on moral grounds. I see no reason to so argue because I am aware of no countries which, other than to their own populations, assert moral bases to exist. Hence, I defend Israel on the same ground that I defend my homeland, the US. That defense is simply that the US exists.

Now, so far as the longevity of colonial projects, I live in a very long standing one, namely, the US. The US is the dominant country in the world, last I looked. And, the US, last time I looked, was the result of colonization.

As for Israel, the argument about colonization is specious. The British would never have trusted Jews, particularly non-British Jews, to carry out Britain's colonial project. And, it was Britain which ruled the country. Instead, the British perhaps hoped to take advantage of the interest by Jews to find a place for themselves. And Jews used the British with the overt aim of getting rid of British rule. That is the exact opposite of any colonial movement.

As for the charge of being alien, that is a species of a racist argument. What possible difference, other than a racist one, does it make whether Jews are or are not alien to the country?


omar ibrahim baker - 12/26/2009

Mr Friedman
That was the politically committed speaking NOT the man of law.
Politically there is very little to talk about.
HE WHO HAS THE POWER WILL IMPOSE HIS WILL!
That seminal fact is never absent from life, history and common sense and that same power in as much as it once enabled the Zionist movement to impose its will in the future will undo its achievement in Palestine.

My whole point here is: drop the B S about the legality and morality of Israel; drop your objection to "colons" and "aliens" and accept the all too plain fact that Israel is a Zionist COLONIALIST project brought to fruition by ALIENS to Palestine!

As such it will meet the same destiny of other colonialist projects!

That alas but inevitably will be the outcome of generations long wars and confrontations that we as a nation can survive but Israel can NOT!
Richard Cohen of the Washington Post was correct in depicting the Zionist project in Palestine as a "mistake"!
And a very grave and costly mistake I will add.


omar ibrahim baker - 12/26/2009

Mr Friedman
1-My sentence is: " that at no time ever exceeded 18% of its total area " in which the 18% refers to AREA and NOT to population as you baselessly claim .

2-Had the roles been reversed or had the issue involved others than Arabs and Jews would you have exclaimed:
"who could care less? " when talking a people's majority opinion ??

That exclamation of yours was:
"as genuine, heart felt but intuitive and self revealing gut reaction as we are ever likely to see made in public by a Zionist that unmasks and plainly, unerringly, demonstrates a fundamentally RACIST attitude of mind and psyche formation brought about by ceaseless centuries old indoctrination from the cradle onwards."

As a matter of fact the substance of your exclamation , being the epitome of Zionism, DID NOT surprise me except that I hardly expected that from a man who usually chooses his words with care and is very adept at masking his real intentions and meaning in innocent sounding terms.
As we say in Arabic " the truth is bound to come out!"


N. Friedman - 12/26/2009

Omar,

I shall address your first point.

My view is that avoiding harm to others is preferable but in the world that actually exists, there will be at least some harm to the indigenous population. That harm will include, among other things (such other things being addressed in the next paragraph), the very things you object to, namely, that the character of the land could be altered and the population demographics could be altered. I have called those objections racist.

In addition, newcomers tend to come into conflict with others, whether due to their behavior or that of others. Concern about that is real and certainly legitimate. Hence, in the US, there is concern about crime caused by Hispanic immigrants. Such concerns are, in fact, legitimate and different from racist concerns that the US may become dominated by Hispanics or that American culture will be corrupted by Hispanics or become Hispanic.

Which is to say, with reference to the Middle East, Palestine's Arabs certainly had legitimate concern that newcomers would not respect their property and personal rights. The concern, though, that the character of the land would change or that the demographics of the region would change are racist concerns.

Regarding your second question, I thought that my statements replied to your earlier questions by explaining my position as clearly as I could.


omar ibrahim baker - 12/26/2009

Mr Friedman
This "reconstruction" thing can go on indefinetely which neither of us , I presume, wishes so I will NOT pursue it.

However I find it intriguing that you a man of the law should fail to address my other point , namely:

"However in this whole issue the most "dangerous/alarming " , but quite revealing, thing is Mr Friedman's, a lawyer by profession and education, total dismissal of and utter contempt for the cardinal legal principle that:
"in the exercise of their, presumed, " rights" ( to find refuge,in this case) no trespassing on others' rights shall be allowed "".

Nor did you attempt any reply to the specific questions earlier paused.
I was, still am, very eager to read your reply(s)!


N. Friedman - 12/26/2009

Omar,

You have entirely misrepresented what I wrote and then seek to undermine those misrepresentations. I have no interest in pursuing your misrepresentations further.

If you want this discussion to continue, read what I wrote and respond to it, not to your own false reconstruction of it.

Again: my position is that, as an historical matter, governments - whether in democracies or otherwise - decide who enters countries. That is true throughout the world. "Indigenous" people generally object to immigration, most often for racist reasons. And, your objections to Jewish immigration to what is now Israel (i.e. that it changed the demographics and culture of the land) all sound like traditional arguments put forth by racists. Must I cite the arguments used in the US by racists that oppose Hispanic immigration? A hint: they use the very same arguments you use.


N. Friedman - 12/26/2009

Omar,

The first part of your post basically ignores what I said, which is that Jerusalem had a Jewish majority from the middle of the 19th Century and that the old city was not exclusively Muslim but included a substantial Jewish population. You claim that population was 18%. News: 18% is a substantial portion of the population.

You are welcome to claim that my argument is racist. It is not but I do not intend to debate the point.


omar ibrahim baker - 12/26/2009

Mr Friedman declaims that :
"If you ( Omar) had read my comment carefully, you would have noted that I qualified my point by indicating that the old part of the city had a Jewish Quarter, not that the old part of the city was majority Jewish "!

Going back to his comment:
( Lastly, your history is not correct. Jerusalem was largely a Jewish city for a long time before Israel came to be. It is true that substantial parts of the old city were Muslim but not all of it./Re: Doctrinally/ confessionally blinded or born blind? (#138801) by N. Friedman on December 24, 2009 at 5:05 PM )

I can NOT find here or any where else in this post any mention or reference to a "Jewish Quarter," ; which reference, to a "Jewish Quarter", was first made by me, and NOT by Mr Friedman, in:
" Mr Friedman
A-
Old Jerusalem had a "Jewish" quarter that at no time ever exceeded 18% of its total area as an ,admittedly rough, quantification of its area on a city map would indicate/.Re: Doctrinally/ confessionally blinded or born blind? (#138805)by omar ibrahim baker on December 25, 2009 at 3:47 AM "

Here Mr Friedman patently goes from his usual extrapolation to actual FABRICATION!


However of much more interest and SIGNIFICANCE is his assertion :

"As for your argument about populations, who could care less? "

"who could care less? ":
as genuine, heart felt but intuitive and self revealing gut reaction as we are ever likely to see made in public by a Zionist that unmasks and plainly, unerringly, demonstrates a fundamentally RACIST attitude of mind and psyche formation brought about by ceaseless centuries old indoctrination from the cradle onwards.


omar ibrahim baker - 12/26/2009

Which is a reply that answers NONE of the questions addressed to Mr Friedman!
A sure sign of the legal and moral bankruptcy of the cause he advocates and a sure proof of the intrinsic illegitimacy and amorality of the evil it begotted.

Interestingly, Mr Friedman here once again displays his phony attachment to democracy, that he lauded so often in the past, by declaiming:
"So, if left solely to the will of the majority, refugees would never be resettled. "
Which boils down to:
"for some issues ( that he and his will choose at will according to his/their whim and/or interests of the day) the will of the majority SHALL NOT be respected!

So it is a SELECTIVE DEMOCRACY to fit, in this case the colonialist aspirations of a racist marauding bunch coveting a certain land, that he advocates and not a democracy that ordains that the will of the majority shall be respected .

However in this whole issue the most "dangerous/alarming " , but quite revealing, thing is Mr Friedman's, a lawyer by profession and education, total dismissal of and utter contempt for the cardinal legal principle that:
"in the exercise of their, presumed, " rights" ( to find refuge,in this case) no trespassing on others' rights shall be allowed ".

Which dismissal of and contempt for a cardinal legal principle underlies Zionism as a doctrine and epitomize the history and polity of its pernicious outgrowth: Israel!


N. Friedman - 12/25/2009

Omar,

Historically, the right to migrate to a land is determined by the ruler of the land. That is, for example, how Arabs came to reside in so many places other than Arabia. That is certainly how Jews came to reside in any country in which they now reside.

Where there is a democracy established, the will of the people is supposed to be expressed in the government. That is the ideal but, of course, things are not quite that simple. Even in democracies, it is the government, not majority opinion, that decides who may immigrate. That is why there is massive immigration into the US and into Europe when, in both countries, the vast majority of the "indigenous" population opposes that immigration and, I might add, on the same racist theory that you espouse.

In a world where the people decide all, perhaps there would be no countries. In that case, the free migration of people would be for all, from anyplace to anyplace. But, since the world is made up of countries and, as things now exist, the governments of places, not the people, always make such decisions, the best that is available for mankind - and what best protects refugees - is the ability of governments, on their own say so, to allow immigrants even when the majority opposes it.

After all, bigotry against aliens is the norm. Objection to aliens, as well expressed by you, is the norm throughout the world - a world filled with bigots. So, if left solely to the will of the majority, refugees would never be resettled. The oppressed would never be able to migrate to escape oppression. That would always risk the "indigenous" character of someplace.

In the US, there was object to the migration of African Americans to White neighborhoods in northern cities. It was bigoted.


N. Friedman - 12/25/2009

Omar,

It is a fact that Jews constituted the majority in Jerusalem from the middle of the 19th Century on. If you had read my comment carefully, you would have noted that I qualified my point by indicating that the old part of the city had a Jewish Quarter, not that the old part of the city was majority Jewish.

Again, though, none of this matters one wit. Land has no ethnic character. Your ongoing claim that its former Arab character ought be immutable is, in reality, a religious claim, not a rational claim.

Why should anyone other than an Arab care that the land of Israel may once have had an Arab character? It is an irrelevancy just as the fact that the land on which the US is established previously had the character established by American Indians. Should Americans return the US to the American Indians? That, to note, is a necessarily corollary to your argument but one which, given that your argument is really propaganda, you will not advance because it would reveal the invalidity of your argument. But, of course, an argument must be capable of universal application to be valid.

I might add that the Arab character of the land differed markedly from what it had been in the 18th Century. Should Arabs not concentrate their considerable skills on making the land they still rule more like it once was? Or, is your allegation that the Israeli Zionists altered the character of the land really a canard used by you as propaganda but without any significance?

In my view, your entire line of argument is a secular version of a religious argument, namely, that once land is ruled by Muslims, it must maintain the same ratio of religions and it can only be ruled by Muslims. The rest of BS.

As for your argument about populations, who could care less? The peoples who populate a great many countries of the world came from other places. The Turks comprise a number of ethnic groups, a great many of whom came to what is now Turkey as refugees. And, the founders of the Ottoman Empire were not natives either but, instead, the children of people who had migrated from further east. No country in the Americas is controlled by an indigenous group. All have entirely different cultures than their predecessors gave them. And, today, the culture of the US is being changed by the influx of people of Hispanic background. On your view, US citizens ought take up arms to prevent the change, a change that the vast majority of Americans do not want. My view is that such a position is, to considerable measure, a racist argument. That is true for your argument.

In any event, migration is the norm of history. You do not like that fact and, rather than live a life in Jordan or wherever you come from, you obsess that part of the lands once ruled by Muslims is now ruled by Jews. And, no doubt, you hate that fact. But frankly, that is your problem and the effort to change that fact is a waste of lives - especially Arab lives - to the benefit of no one other than arms dealers.


omar ibrahim baker - 12/25/2009

Mr Friedman has a mantra that he never tires from repeating:
" ... the "right "of oppressed people to find refuge where it becomes available."

Humanistic and altruistic as it sounds it should , never the less, be objectively scrutinized ; assuning all men and women have equal rights.

A preliminary scrutiny would request from Mr Friedman an answer to the following general question and the more specific questions that follow .
General Question
-What rights do the indigenous people of the desired refuge has vis a vis those desiring refuge in their, the indigenous people's, domain?

More specifically:

1-Does that "right to find refuge" annuls the right of the refuge's indigenous people to express their acceptance or refusal of the refuge seekers "right to find refuge" in their, the indigenous people's,
domain ?
2-Does that "right to find refuge " super cede and annul the right of the domain's indigenous people to have a say about it ie accepting or rejecting it ?
3-Does the "right to find refuge" include forced entry against the will of the refuge's indigenous population?
4-Does that "right to find refuge" include the right to alter the nationalist/cultural identity of the "refuge"?
To make the majority a minority and vice versa?
5-Is it legitimate, ethical and acceptable that those seeking refuge should, in the exercise of their "right to find refuge", use force to exercise it.
6-Does that "right to find refuge " give those seeking refuge the right to dislocate, dispossess and disfranchise the indigenous population of their favoured refuge?

Generally what RIGHTS does the people of the coveted refuge have vis a vis those seeking refuge in their, the indigenous people's, domain?


omar ibrahim baker - 12/25/2009


Mr Friedman
A-
Old Jerusalem had a "Jewish" quarter that at no time ever exceeded 18% of its total area as an ,admittedly rough, quantification of its area on a city map would indicate.

However itis an undisputed historical
fact that the overwhelming population of Palestine was Arab, both Moslem and Christian, until the advent of the Zionist/Jewish demographic invasion post WWI.
The sharp increase in Jewish presence in Palestine came only post WWI and G.B's illegitimate admission of Jewish emigrants into Palestine against the express will and relentless opposition o Palestine's indigenous population.
That is amply demonstrated in the following table .
The table shows that the simple ( uncompounded) percentage growth of Jewish population between the years 1918 and 1946 to be 1030% (from 59 to 608 thou); a clear and unmistakeable indication of a colonialist , unnaturaland abnormal demographic growth denoting a premediated conquest and aggressive onslaught.
Where as the Arab,natural,population growth in the same period was only 179% (from 688 to 1237 thou).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Table
IV. Palestine: Arab / Jewish Population (1914 - 1946)


Year/ Jews/ Arabs /Total % of Jews to Total

1914/ 60,000/ 731,000 /791,000 7.585%

1918* 59,000 688,000 747,000 7.898%

1922 83,790 668,258 752,048 11.141%

1931 174,606 858,708 1,033,314 16.897%

1941 474,102 1,111,398 1,585,500 29.902%

1944 554,000 1,211,000 1,765,000 31.388%

1946 608,225 1,237,334 1,845,559 32.956%
Sources & Notes:
Sources by Year:
1914 - 1918
Justin McCarthy The Population of Palestine, 1990
1922 & 1931
British Census (Census conducted by the British Mandate Government.)
1941
Esco Foundation Palestine: A Study of Jewish, Arab, and British Policies Vol. 1, p.46, Yale University Press, 1947
1944 Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry Chapter IV: Population, April 20, 1946
1946 United Nations General Assembly, A/364, "UNSCOP Report to the General Assembly," September 3, 1947
Notes:
* Decrease in population due to WWI and famine.
(End of table)
XXXXXXXXX
Your claim that Jerusalem had a Jewish majority is totally unsupported and is refuted and categorically belied by the KING/CRANE Commission population figures (it is on the Web) and can be correct only in the queer case that you deem the Jewish quarter in Jerusalem as being ALL of Jerusalem!
(I would NOT be surprised if you do.)

B-
By any reasonable linguistic or legal standard and/or definition of the term being a Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, USA or Lithuanian etc etc national or born is to Palestine, nationally, culturally and geographically an ALIEN !
(Webster online defines ALIEN as :
1. A person who comes from a foreign country; someone who does not owe allegiance to your country.
2. Anyone who does not belong in the environment in which they are found.)

Unless of course being Javanese or Japanese are NOT Aliens in and to the USA prior to their acquisition of the US nationality.

C-
"Colonist" is a neutral term that describes Aliens going into a foreign country and establishing colonies therein as for the French in Algeria or the Dutch in Indonesia or South Africa.
( Webster like wise has the following definition of the term.
Colonist:
1. A person who settle in a new colony or moves into new country.)

You can hardly dispute that both terms do , unmistakeably and correctly, describe Jewish emigrants into Palestine as indisputably being both ALIENS and COLONISTS.

Calling a door a "door" or a spade a "spade" does NOT imply any racist outlook ; it is the only correct way way to call a door and a spade!


N. Friedman - 12/24/2009

It appears that part of my comment did not post.

Let's try again:

Of course, Omar, what is missing from your rant is acknowledgment that the supposed character of the land has no relevance to anything and that your version of right and wrong denies the right of oppressed people to find refuge where it becomes available.

Your rant turns oppressed Jews into "ALIENS," "COLONIALISTS, " etc., etc. It is difficult to imagine a more bigoted racist view of the world.

Lastly, your history is not correct. Jerusalem was largely a Jewish city for a long time before Israel came to be. It is true that substantial parts of the old city were Muslim but not all of it.


N. Friedman - 12/24/2009

Of course, Omar, what is missing from your rant is acknowledgment that the supposed character of the land has no relevance to anything and that your version of right and wrong denies the right of oppressed people to find refuge where it becomes available.

oppressed Jews into "ALIENS," "COLONIALISTS, " etc., etc. It is difficult to imagine a more bigoted racist view of the world.

Lastly, your history is not correct. Jerusalem was


omar ibrahim baker - 12/23/2009

There is that common thread running through all Zionist/Jewish colons emigration into Palestine from post WWI to this very day: their self inflicted? subconscious? conscious? blindness to the realities of the human and physical environment into which they trespassed!
A reading of Divine's post, not the book itself ( which I did NOT), will amply illustrate that by noting what the answers to the following questions are :
-What does she have to say about the culture, identity, aspirations etc of the human mass ( if she fails to recognize them as a people) into which Zionist colons ventured?
-And what was their REACTION to that wave of ALIEN emigrants?
-What does she have to say about the unmistakeably Arab/Moslem dominant physical characteristics of the land ( Jerusalem's Old City, its Mosques and Churchs,Nablus',Jaffa's, Hebron's, Acre's etc etc )
-What does she have to say about the dominant cultural feature of that land? Its Arabic lingua franca that prevailed?
-What about the geographical/cultural setting of the land itself?And its dominant human composition and national/cultural identity
She has absolutely nothing to say about any of that .
Unless, of course, none of that really existed in their new environment !
She, and they, must have been doctrinally/ confessionally blinded or born blind!
Which reminds me of the lasting impression I got from Golda Meir's autobiography that I read years ago.
Her first mention of any thing Arab, human or physical, came only some one hubdred pages(+/-) AFTER her arrival to Palestine!
It is that that same blindness that still prevails to this very day among old and recent Zionist colons and their offspring which will be the ultimate undoing of their common colonialist enterprise!

History News Network