|
Back
to Studies page
1-
Meaning and kinds.
2-
Transfer from a Zionist Perspective.
3-
Return Law.
4-
Transfer Plans until 1948.
5-
Transfer Plans (1937 – 1948).
6-
Plans of 1937.
7- Plans
of 1938-1948
8-
Transfer in 1948.
9-
Transfer from 1948 – 1993 (Oslo Accords)
10- 1976
– 1993 (Oslo Accords).
11- Transfer
Plans: From Oslo Accords to Al Aqsa intifada.
12-
Transfer Logistics.
13-
Other Perspectives about Transfer.
1-
Meaning and kinds :
‘Transfer’ is an English word that means ‘to move’ or ‘to transport’ and
it is used to indicate the expulsion of inhabitants from their place of
domicile and relocating them somewhere else. However, it is not just a
term. It expresses a substantial and structural concept in the modern
western civilization that goes beyond politics since it changes the
aspects of this civilization, either prospectively or practically. This
civilization perceives the world as a consuming material that has no
sanctity and that could be utilized and employed since there is no cost
for anything. Nature exists just to be defeated and patronized by man
and he, himself, must submit to materialism. Therefore, he is also a
mobile, materialistic creature who is not different from other species.
He can be transferred, employed and patronized as he is a useful
utilizing tool. Transfer, as a consequence, is not just a political
action or ideological desire. It is a manifestation of a motion pattern
that cuts deep in a human being. It also redefines man in a way that
demolishes him.
By
definition, ‘transfer’ is the domination of referential materialism (in
the era of solid bilateralism) then the disappearance of the reference
and the center, any reference and any center so that there is no more
margins or centers, top or bottom, internal or external, and there is no
difference between man and animal. Moreover, there shall be no more
necessary relationship between the denotation and significance. In the
same sense, we point out that the cohorts of the post-modernization talk
about the ‘countries’ dancing’. This is an accurate description for the
world after the modernity where no human being can occupy a unique
place, where things are equal and all phenomena are relative, where the
genuine and the duplicate are one thing, and where anything can
substitute anything else and a word can replace another. In short, the
idea of transfer is evolving in the new western modern conscience so
that the westerner can’t see the human nature itself but in the frame of
transfer. The value of the ‘transfer mentality’ may manifest in Dr. Max
Lonard’s definition of the modern man when he says that the latter is
that human being who is capable of his set and system of values after a
short notice, that is, the human being is a mobile creature who can
promptly transfer from one set of values into another, and who doesn’t
practice a profound fidelity for anything and who doesn’t feels the
telling off of his conscience when he changes his identity, personality
and orientations.
Kinds of Transfer:
The
concept of transfer includes many forms that play integrated roles among
each other as for enhancement and prologue. The following are among
these most important forms:
I.
Conscience and Intellectual Transfer:
This
kind has expressed itself in the movement of the European discoveries
‘transferring from one place into another’ where the place was just a
space that is used and employed. One way or another, this has been
connected to the military evolution of Europe and it was also
contemporary with the so called ‘Abstractionism Revolution’. This
rebellion has made man capable of coping with things from an abstract
perspective. He, as a result, became interested in the trading value of
things and not their designated value. One of the most important aspects
of this abstractionism revolution is the emerging of spare parts which
are inevitably to be completely identical with the genuine ones in order
to transfer the spare parts (install them) instead of the defected ones
at any time or place. The achievements of the religious reforming era
are among the intellectual transfer. Protestant religious reformers
transferred the religious concepts from the figurative level to which
assumes the presence of a distance between the denotation and
significance (denotation is a specified word whereas significance
includes active and passive, limited and unlimited and sacred and
squalor) into the materialistic level. Accordingly, Zion was changed
into a geographical plot named ‘Palestine’ and the religious aspiration
to it as ‘Zion’ was changed into a movement to occupying it. Also, the
divine ‘Jerusalem’ – the City of God – has changed into the earthly ‘Al
Quds’, the capital of Palestine, which must be conquered.
This
verbal transfer acted as the actual transfer (Zionist Movement –
Protestant Extremist Fundamentalism). This form of transfer reaches its
peak and is entirely dedicated when the concept of the human nature
vanishes in the western human sciences, and being interested in human
fixed points or references becomes archaic and outdated. Humanity, thus,
is a set of variable material relationships that can be only practically
defined. In the same manner, intellectual, or knowledge, transfer
reaches its peak, when practiced, when the society is patterned. As soon
as the material life (external) is patterned, patterning the spiritual
one (internal) sets off.
It’s
highly manifested in the so called ‘pleasure industry’ that patterns the
human dreams, desires, aspirations, and lust through movies, ads,
pornographic and non-pornographic magazines. As the human’s internal and
external lives are planned, we shall have reached the complete transfer
of man so that he becomes like a Coca Cola can or the spare part.
Consequently, he could be then transferred from one place to another or
disposed of without any sense of misery or tragedy. This is the
technological utopia, the earthly heaven or the end of days and history.
II.
Aesthetic Transfer:
It is
expressed through aesthetic system. Every year, new costume designs that
have nothing to do with the previous ones emerge. Man has to follow and
change the way he dresses in. Every week, a new song is released. The
westerner (and now the easterner) listens to this song then forgets it.
A new car model is introduced every year and man has also to change his
car (in some industrial societies, man changes his car every three
years). The spread of plastic surgery might be another aspect of the
same phenomenon. Man changes his face and opts another one (that is
previously designed with computers). He modifies this face with a
specialist then installs the latest version. Plastic surgery has many
solutions such as contact lenses, colored lenses, artificial breasts,
etc… to express itself. Besides, blind belief in experiment in arts is
one kind of transfer. The artist is not easily convinced with in one
stable artistic form, but has to be after a new form. Hence, the
fundamental civilized form has become the ‘transfer’. Vacant and garbage
civilization as well as planned erosion in their essence are the
civilization of transfer. Actually, man does the same in order to
increase his mobility so that his proficient ability to transfer from
one place into another increases. This kind of transfer also comprises
the ability to see one’s self. The westerner, with in the frame of the
material referential, is able to see himself since he is a consumable
substance that has no sanctity and which could be employed with out any
objection from his part. Transfer is also applied to one’s self when the
elderly in western society move and accept to be transferred to rest
homes and cities that form ghettos of their own when they reach the
legal age and use up their hypothetical productive age. According to Dr.
Al Massiri, transfer is applied to elderly is somehow issued by the same
transfer theories which legitimized the Nazis demolition of the Jews,
gypsies, Slavs and others. Nazism considered people within the frame of
its reference and in the extent of their usefulness. The state of these
people was settled through demolition camps.
III.
Economical Transfer:
This
kind of transfer is expressed through exporting economical crisis and
dilemmas to Europe when the surplus goods, dead stock and bad
merchandise are exported (as Jewish murderers were exported to
Palestine) to the east. This pattern went on in many forms. The most
important form at the being time may be the multi-nationalities
corporations that build up industries that cause high rate of pollution
in the third world countries. West is burring the industrial exhausts in
the third world, thus transferring them there. In addition to that
consuming patterns and capitals are also transferred. As globalization
moves on, entire manufacturing industries are transferred and the
recommendations of the International Bank are imposed, etc… changing the
whole issue into mere commerce and trading, according to Shimon Perez
when he delivered a speech in a clique of Egyptian intellectuals in
1999. As a result, democracy becomes trading, home countries shall be
boutiques and hotels, and man shall be an economical unit that can be
transferred. And as one of the Egyptian intellectuals said, “All
countries would like to be Singapore. Who is Singapore? It is not famous
for its identity, values or civilized contributions. It is well-known as
the hyper supermarket and for its amazing ability to purchasing and
selling.”
IV.
Real Actual Transfer:
It is
characterized in the colonial solution of Europe, that is, export these
problems, including social crisis, from Europe into the orient. The
first similar operations were the transfers of the puritans, political
and religious insurgents, as well as criminals and social failures into
America and Australia. These operations were followed by other transfer
process such as transferring the inhabitants of Africa into North and
South America in order to change the same into a cheap consumable
material. Also, transferring the Red Indians into habitats other than
their own or to the other world is among the evident examples (both
transfer processes are entirely joined since transferring them to the
other world usually transacted when they transferred form one place into
another). Transferring the European armies into all different parts of
the globe for the purpose of dominating the world and transforming it
into a human and natural substance that is employed for the benefit of
the west is among these forms of this same transfer. Furthermore, moving
the human excess from Europe into European colonies all over the world
to form bases for the westerner armies and cultures (leading later to
the most immense immigration in history) is one of these forms too. This
form includes the transportation of many ethnic minorities into other
countries (Chinese to Malaysia, Indians into many places, and Jews into
Argentina) so that the colonial occupation is complete. These minorities
produce colonial pockets within the countries they settle in. Another
form is the transfer of the fighting combatants from Asia and Africa and
transforming them into mercenaries in the western colonial armies, such
as Indians, especially the Sikh, in the British armies. It is well-known
that about 132.000 persons were deported from the western Arab world
during World War I in order to fill the gap of recruiting French. Some
of these deportees were directly and immediately recruited for combats
(that was the first immigration of the population of the western part of
the Arab world). The same process continued for many other factors and
reasons later.
In this
scope, Zionist occupation of Palestine took place. Substantially, it was
an export of one of Europe’s social problems and the Jewish issue to the
orient. Europe’s Jews were only a useless, human surplus within Europe
that can be employed for serving their interests in Palestine. On the
other hand, Arabs, as a population mass, stood against these interests.
Palestine was also a substance. It was not a homeland but an integral
and inseparable part of natural substance called ‘land’. Therefore,
Arabs were expelled from Palestine and Jews were transferred into it.
Everything was reformulated in order to match the western interests.
Top
2-
Transfer form a Zionist Perspective:
Zionism
naissance from the uterus of the western civilized reformation as well
as the necessities that it is achieved as a political project lead to
lethal and aggressive role and function that contain the Jewish human
excess and protect the western interests in the Arab region. Transfer
concept has always been consistent and associated with the existence of
Zionism as a political movement, a colonial replacement project and a
functional role. It has also been the fundamental, strategic and
untouchable principle due to its divinity and position as a source of
uniqueness of Zionism. Occupation and colonialism form a structural
concurrent that is hard, if not impossible, to be disjointed where
occupation depends on vanishing the Palestinian land through conquering
and Judaizing the same and on the second hand eliminating the
Palestinian population through expelling by transfer. Therefore, if the
entire Palestinian homeland were occupied while its native inhabitants,
Arab Palestinians, were still over it, it would be impossible for a
Zionist entity to exist. Instead, a state that represents its
population, regardless of their ethnicity or religion, would have
existed. The same state would have acquired its identity from the
ethnicity of the majority of the population. However, such a state
doesn’t satisfy or realize the Zionist dream that has endeavored since
the early beginnings to establish the entity/ghetto, thus leading the
movement to adopt the policy of transfer of Arabs, in particularly that
the number of Jews in Palestine before the war of 1948 didn’t exceed
649.633 Jews. Should we consider this number in terms of families of
five members each, we would have 129.927 families against Jewish
purchased and confiscated property that can only contain 35.521
families. In other words, there are 97.406 families that surplus the
containing abilities which is supposed to be in the Jewish ‘properties’.
Thus, it was inevitable to execute the transfer policy and expel and
exodus Arabs from and out of their lands and homes. The slogan ‘A land
with no people for a people with no land’ is derived from the same. And
since such a land is only found over the moon, as Hanna Arant, a Jewish
philosopher, says, the western colonialism had to conquer a plot of land
and then exodus the same from its population by using violence, and so
on. This is why we find that Zionists, all Zionists, regardless of their
political or ideological orientations and immoral values they believe
in, have participated and shared in paving the way for transfer and
construing it into a real fact setting off from Israel Zanfwil’s theory,
“If we want to give a land to people who doesn’t possess one, it is
extremely foolish to allow any other people to exist on the same land.”
So, the implied idea within deporting and uprooting the native Arab
population out of Palestine goes with the ideology that is exclusively
based on one ethnicity and aims at reformulating ethnic-religious and
demographic facts in Palestine and making it a Jewish state that has
only one religion. Undoubtedly, these pieces of information and
experience has affirmed the basic comprehensive Zionist formula is a
transfer process of a set of religious terms and concepts from its
religious and metaphoric level into a literal, material level that ends
up with a formula that inevitably suggests two population transfers:
-
Transferring the Jews from exile into Palestine
-
Transferring the Palestinians from Palestine into exile
There
is an equation that summarizes that formula which has been repeated
again and again by the Zionists. This equation says: “Palestine is for
Jews and Palestine’s Arab residents are distributed on the Arab
countries.” Later, Zionism amended the same equation taking the time
agent into consideration. This devious amendment was only linguistic
and it maintained meaning and essence. The equation became: “Palestine
remains for Jews and Palestine’s Arab residents settle in the Arab
countries they have sought asylum in.” The best expression of this
equation might be the discussion that took place between the Zionist
leader Chaim Weizmann and Ivan Meiski, the Soviet ambassador to England,
on January 20, 1940 in London, about the possible solutions in Palestine
after the end of World War II. The latter proposed the necessity of
conducting a population exchange, but Weizmann replied, “If we can expel
and transfer one million Palestinians from Palestine, we could settle
one million Jews in their place. This would be a first step only.”
Top
3-
“Return Law”
Jewish
immigration, or the deportation of the Jews into Palestine, has been
given a different name in the Zionist glossary other than the
‘transfer’. It was called ‘the return’ which is a nonbiased term since
it serves the biblical allegations about Palestine as the original and
historical homeland of the Jews. Consequently, Jews immigration to
Palestine is nothing but a ‘return’. According to same, the Zionist
entity issued a law in 1950 called ‘The Return Law’ which granted any
Jew in the world to immigrate to Palestine and the right to citizenship
as soon as he gets there. David Ben-Gurion indicated the nature of this
law when it was submitted to the Knesset by saying, “This law doesn’t
grant the Jew the right to immigrate to it since this right is natural
for every Jew. It aims at determining the nature of the Zionist entity
and its unique purpose. This state is different from any other state in
the world as for the elements of establishing and purposes, and its
authority is restricted within its residents, but its doors are open to
every Jew wherever he is.” Ben-Gurion confirmed that the ‘return law is
the legal expression of the Zionist vision’. It is worth mentioning that
the same law has been repeatedly amended. The first time was in August
1954 when the law set forth that ‘any Jew, who has immigrated to
Palestine (before the law is put into effect) and every Jew who was born
in Palestine (before or after the law is put into effect), is a person
who came to Palestine as a ‘returning expatriate (immigrant)’.
Although the said law is an immigration law, and not a naturalization
one, it was a perfectly integrated law because in its essence it relied
on the naturalization law. The second amendment took place in March 1970
in the aftermath of a repeated ministry crisis about defining the ‘Jew’.
The amendment contained a clause that stipulated: ‘A Jew is the person
who is born to a Jewish mother or the converted to the Jewish religion
and has no other religion.’ The same law also set forth that the
‘Israeli’ nationality is to be granted automatically to all the members
of an immigrant, non-Jewish family. Another amendment was introduced to
the law of return when terms such as being domiciled in Israel or being
fluent in Hebrew, or even waiving other nationalities were not required
to benefit from the same law. It was sufficient to express the intention
of settling in ‘Israel’ in order to benefit from the same law. As the
‘return law’ was issued, Judaism has become a legal capacity that grants
its holders a right denied to non-Jewish.
As a
conclusion of the aforementioned, transfer, as a concept and practice,
was used in the Jewish speech on Arabs only. Undoubtedly, the same
meaning was also used in the Arabs’ political speech.
The
Zionist activity in practicing transfer was basically focused on two
kinds: Intellectual Transfer and Actual Transfer. Below, we shall shed
some light on the manifestations of the two kinds in the Zionist
intellect and practice.
Intellectual (Knowledge) Transfer:
It is
based on expelling the Palestinian history from the human memory and
replacing it with biblical myths and legends. Also, this kind of
transfer relies on erasing the new archeological traces and information
that highlights the Palestinian history for the sake of one reference
which is the biblical tales and scripts. Keith Watilam, Professor of
Religious Studies at Eastrling University, describes this process as the
“Making up of Ancient ‘Israel’ and Muting the Palestinian History”. The
same expression was used by the said professor as a title for his book
in which he revealed the involvement of biblical studies in divesting
Palestinians of their history, after their land had been stolen too.
These studies are in a constant search for the ‘Ancient Israel’ and
repeat a number of allegations that connect past with present. By doing
so, they are linking the sense in the past with the present social and
political identity. Also, Bible’s speech has always demanded this past
for the benefit of ‘Israel’. On the other hand, the substantial idea
these biblical studies are built on is to consider ‘Ancient Israel’ as
an indisputable historic fact then to affirm the existence of a direct
historic and strategic fact between the ‘Ancient Kingdom of Israel’ at
the beginning of the Iron Age and between the ‘Modern State of Israel’.
Confirming this historic and strategic fact is not enough. Biblical
studies also confirm the parallelism between the two histories where the
events of the ancient history are employed in serving the political,
contemporary Zionist avarices. In return, any similar concept to the
continuity of the Palestinian history between past and present is being
wiped out, and even denied. In best cases, the existence of the
Palestinian people over the land of Palestine is considered accidental
and not genuine. As a result, Palestine, for Jews, is not a mere plot of
land but a part of soil there ancestors and forefathers lived on more
than two thousand years ago. So, archeology has had extremely dangerous
political results.
Against
this transfer of Palestinian history, Keith Watilam calls on the
Palestinians to retrieve not only their modern history but also the
ancient one from the hand of the biblical studies and underlines the
necessity of doing the same or they would never be able to make their
voices heard and reclaim their right in history. Zionism, as previously
explained, expels history and archeology and replaces them with legends
and biblical ideologies, thus making the bible the key source and the
mainstream of history which deserves the title of the ‘record of
history’.
When it
comes to intellectual (knowledge) transfer, Myron Benifinsty, a Zionist
researcher, agrees with Keith Watilam. In his book ‘The Holy Place’,
Benifinsty explains how the Palestinian holy place was destroyed and an
‘Israeli’ place was erected on the rubbles of the former and how a
‘whopping, immensely-pierced holy dress’ that doesn’t cover the first
sin which made their ‘Israeli’ place is sought for the same. There’s a
school that works on realizing such expulsion of the Palestinian history
and confronting the discoveries that support it. This school is the
biblical school (or the biblical researchers). This trend first appeared
among historians at the end of the nineteenth century along with the
emerging of Zionism and the search for a Jewish national homeland. It
springs from the idea that says that ‘contemporary Israel’ is nothing
but a reconstruction process of ‘ancient Israel’. Unquestionably, this
rhetorical management has played a perilous role in wiping the
Palestinian history out. Under the British mandate, political momentum
was available for the said trend. The British mandate instrument
contained a sign to the ‘historical link’ between the Jewish Diaspora in
the world and Palestine, the land of their forefathers, as they called,
on the basis of Chaim Weizmann persistency who believed that focusing on
the historical side is a key condition of success for the Zionist
project and to secure the return of the Jews to the ‘land of their
ancestors’. Weizmann always said, “We are not coming. We are returning.”
The
influence of the biblical interpretation on the western mind reached
level that the entry of ‘Palestinian’ in Oxford Dictionary was
synonymous with ‘barbarism’ and ‘stringency’. The Palestinian, as
described, was anti-cultural person with material trends with limited
horizon and doesn’t posses higher education. The denial of the setting
of the Palestinian history through eliminating the time and geography of
the same is among the transfer policies. It seems that this was the
purpose of establishing the fund of discovering Palestine in 1865 after
25 years of instating the first British consulate in Jerusalem and the
beginning of the European permeation in Palestine and most of the
Ottoman Empire territories. The charter of this fund plainly illustrates
that Palestine wasn’t important in itself, but its importance lies in
other reasons pertinent to the bible; that is, the value of Palestine is
so important because it is the country of the bible. The charter of the
fund read as follows regarding Palestine: “Accurate and systematic
search for demographic, geological, natural geography and the customs
and traditions of the people of the holy land aims at grasping bible.”
Hence, Palestine becomes ‘the holy land’ and ‘…’ and the Palestinian
setting doesn’t exist any more. Besides, the history of the entire
region becomes the history of ‘Ancient Israel’ as portrayed by the
formulas of the biblical heritage. The outcomes of the fund’s researches
were 26 detailed maps at a scale of 1/6000 and the 46 classifications of
sites such as city, village, deserted place, well, hill, spring, castle,
river, etc. The fund also released 10 volumes along with the maps that
included geological and ecological studies on plants, animals, birds,
water, archeology and topography surveys and studies and some notes on
the historical meanings of Palestine’s villages and towns. It should be
noted that these volumes and maps were republished in 1998 in the
centenary of releasing the first print. This comes from the Zionist
delusion and fallacy as they believe that drawing maps and conducting
field scanning and surveys as well as giving biblical names to the lands
and obliterating Arabic ones give them the right to control and dominate
the land. Therefore, the Arabic names of Palestinian villages and towns
were replaced with Hebrew ones. Nonetheless, these intensive trials
didn’t completely succeed since its rate didn’t exceed 30%. This is due
to the stiffness and inflexibility of the Hebrew language which failed
to replace the Arabic language in designating the names of Palestinian
towns, villages and sites. Thus, names remained as they used to be and
were only pronounced in Hebrew. An important note should be highlighted
here: when the land, in itself, loses its value, the value of the human
beings living over it is also bereaved. To support this, we hereby quote
Chaim Weizmann’s story to Arthur Rubin, Director of the Department of
Settlements at the Jewish Agency, about the method he used to get
Balfour’s Declaration and the latter’s opinion in the Arab Palestinians,
“British told us that there are only a few thousands of useless Negroes
of no value.” Not only does the concept of the empty land, according to
the European centralization terms, necessarily mean that this land is
vacant from people, but also of civilization. This concept justifies the
Zionist colonization and indifference about the native inhabitants and
about expelling them later.
Actual and Practical Transfer:
It
means to uproot and displace the Arab Palestinians from their homeland
which is the highest priority of the Zionist agenda and the Zionist
propaganda as well as planning and practice. These plans and practices,
being integrated and interweaved, shall further overcome, in density and
impetus, the ‘transfers’ which took place between 1882 and 1948 exodus.
In the future, this transfer shall become a potential priority that
explicitly expresses itself and emerges whenever the appropriate
circumstances are available. Transfer can be traced as early as the
Zionist propaganda and even earlier – before its political formula was
set up in Basle Convention in Switzerland in 1898. In the following, we
cite the Zionist author Musti Simalinski’s imagined meeting held among
the social Zionist pioneers in 1891 and during which some questions were
raised about the Arabs:
- The
land in … and Galilee is occupied by Arabs.
-
Alright. We shall then take it back from them.
- How?
(Silence prevails)
- A
rebel doesn’t ask silly questions.
- Well,
you rebel. Tell us how?
The
answer to the last question came in evident and unambiguous expressions:
“It is so simple. We shall perturb them with frequent raids and attacks
until they leave … Let them go beyond the river.” When another voice,
filled with anxiety tried to know whether that scenario would be the end
or not, the answer, once again, came so decisive and specific: “As long
as we shall have a bulky settlement here, we shall take over the land
and become strong enough. Then, we shall become more interested in the
East Bank and chuck them out of there too. Let them go back to the Arab
states.”
On the
other hand, Theodore Hertzel had come across the transfer issue before
this Zionism was posed in Basle Convention in 1898 and even before he
finished writing his book ‘The Jewish State’. In the entry dated
12.06.1895 of his diary, he personally said, “When the land is occupied,
we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that shall receive us. We
have to smoothly conquer the lands we are planning to control. We shall
endeavor to depose the underprivileged populace across the borders
through creating and providing employment for them in the countries that
shall receive them. We, however, shall preclude them from practicing any
job in our state. The owners of the land shall come after us and we
shall have to conquest the properties and deport the poor
simultaneously, but discretely and vigilantly.”
Yet,
even if Hertzel called for extraditing a specific class of native
population, which is the underprivileged, the Zionist speech wasn’t
built on the same incidence and content. He later encircled a greater
number of potential deportees from Palestine to include all Arabs since
he only understood transfer as the act of casting out all of them. The
same is manifested in a speech for Israel Zangwell delivered before a
crowd of Zionist in Manchester, England on April 1905: “We must prepare
ourselves to expel the Arab tribes by using force as our forefathers
did, otherwise we shall suffer the existence of many foreigner residents
who are mostly Muslims.” In another occasion, Israel Zangwell further
illustrates that expelling Arabs is due to the necessity of realizing
the Zionist project first, and second, to the absence of a reason that
makes the Arabs cling to this land since, as he says, “they are only
Bedouins who move from place to place; they silently dismantle their
tents and move into another place.” Later after, Zionist pioneers
immensely expressed the possible transfer, each from his perspective.
For instance, on May 11, 1911, Arthur Rubin, Director of the Department
of Settlements at the Jewish Agency, suggested a specific transfer of
Arab peasants into Aleppo and Homos in Northern Syria after they are
being disposed of their properties. Nineteen years later, he construed
his suggestion “Land is the vital condition for our occupation of
Palestine. Yet, there were no agricultural lands. All plots were
cultivated already. When we bought a piece of land, we inevitable had to
cast out its farmers.” Zionist leaders realized that the expulsion of
Arabs was impossible without an international cover. The discussion
between Israel Zangwell and Vladimir Japotshski that took place in
Boston, England in 1916 exemplifies the issue:
Zangwell: Expulsion of
Arabs from Palestine in order to allow the settling of the European
populace must precede realizing Zionism.
Japotshski: Arabs shall
not leave their native land voluntarily.
Zangwell: The Zionist
project must be a part of a new international order, where there is no
place for sentimental alibis.
Zangwell’s words are only the
echoes of his friend Aaron Aaronsiv’s thoughts, the agricultural
engineer who worked for the British intelligence service during World
War I and who was a member in the Zionist expedition headed by Chaim
Weizmann that visited Palestine in 1918. He clearly and cheekily wrote
in the British Intelligence newsletter about the obligation of
‘deni-deportation’ of Arab peasants from plots that were to be bought
for Zionist colonial purposes from the absent Arab owners. While
reviewing the presence of transfer in the Zionist propaganda, some
declarations of political Zionism pioneers that confirm the objection to
expelling Arab Palestinians to east Jordan or Syria, and their
persistence on Iraq draws attention. This indicates the early awareness
and vigilance of the Zionist figures to the reality that not only
Palestine, but also all of the Cham states are the vital extent of the
Zionist project and that Iraq was the final stage of the Palestinian
cause. Baron Edmund James Rothschild, one of the bases of Zionist
colonization and the great financer of the early settlements, instructed
Shibtai Livni, who was a land broker for the ‘Palestinian Association
for Zionist Colonization’ which was founded by Rothschild himself, to
continue his activities of purchasing lands with a little note “It is
better not to deport Arabs to Syria and east Jordan because they are
parts of the Land of Israel,” according to Livni’s dairy. The solution
was to “Expel them to Mesopotamia (Iraq),” always according to Livni’s
diary. The baron added, “In such conditions, I shall be ready to send
new agricultural machines and consultants to the Arabs on his own
expense.” Ben-Gurion reclaimed the same perspective on 31.08.1934 in a
meeting with Moussa Al Alami at the latter’s village near Jerusalem.
Ben-Gurion proposed that East Jordan be reformed into a one Jewish state
that is linked to a union of Arab states. This arrangement ‘was to
provide endless Jewish immigration and colonization in East Jordan’ as
he said. In Al Alami’s version of the discussions in that meeting, he
said, “Bin-Gurion suggested that if the Arabs left Palestine and East
Jordan for the Jews, Arabs would count on the Jewish aid, not only in
relocating and resettling Palestinian deportees and Diaspora, but also
in other Arab issues in other countries.” On the other hand, Lehy and
Stern gangs’ ideologies overtly called for deporting Arab Palestinians
as well as the population of East Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, who possess
parts of the ‘Land of Israel’.
Top
4- Transfer Plans until 1948:
Simultaneously with promoting transfer and clarifying its necessity for
the Zionist project, Zionism bent over backwards to bring transfer into
reality. Zionist also achieved what it had been dreaming of when it
expelled a million Palestinian in 1948 and scattered them in the remains
of Palestine and other neighboring Arab states. The one million
Palestinians came from 530 villages, out of which 418 were demolished.
To
elucidate what happened, it is obligatory that we scrutinize some of the
Zionist transfer plans. The starting point shall be Arthur Rubin’s
suggestion of 11.05.1911 in his memo addressed to the Zionist Executive
Committee. He recommended a limited expulsion of peasants who were to be
dispossessed of their lands from Palestine into northern Syria in Aleppo
and Homos. Three years later, precisely on 12.05.1914, he repeated his
proposition in his letter to Victor Jeeks. In the aftermath of Al-Birak
Revolution in 1929 and the consequences introduced in Shaw Committee’s
Investigation Report, Chaim Weizmann submitted a plan that aimed at
transferring Arabs from Palestine during his talks with British
officials. Weizmann accounts what had happened in a meeting with Edmund
Shelzium, the British Minister of Colonies, on 04.03.1920, “A radical
solution must be found and (Shelzium) doesn’t find any problem in making
Palestine the homeland of the Jewish people and in revealing these
intentions explicitly to the Arabs. He (Shelzium) points out that East
Jordan and Mesopotamia encircle vast plots where work could be done
freely.” Weizmann seems to have gone far and put himself out to market
his proposition before the British government. On 06.03.1920, he met
Lord Passfield. Once again, Weizmann reveals very interesting points
that took place in the meeting, “I said to the Lord the whole crisis had
begun because East Jordan was separated from Palestine in the dim of the
night, in my opinion. All of a sudden, more than half of the area of the
land was taken away and the Jews were prevented from colonizing the
same. Now, while we are in the middle of dilemmas in Palestine, it is
certain that if we weren’t permitted to cross the Jordan River, Arabs
would do the same. The same issue applies in Iraq.” Wezemann continues
his account, “Lord Passfield told me that we may face problems with Iraq
because it has an independent government and it is so difficult to cope
with its people.” “I replied that it wasn’t easy, but this country must
be developed and it can’t follow the capital pattern due to its
political situations, but it could be colonized by Moslems, or perhaps
by the Jews. We, along with the government would negotiate with the
Arabs. Let’s assume that we have established a development company there
that acquires about one million km2 of land in East Jordan,
this would create a reserve to settling Arabs and ease the pressure on
Palestine, if there is any,” Weizmann carried on. He then moved into
realizing this proposition and on 23.06.1930 asked Felix Green, the
concerned officer at the Jewish Agency, to immediately send him details
about the lands that could be bought in East Jordan for the purposes of
settling Palestinians that were going to be shuffled. Weizmann, together
with Rottenberg – Founder of Palestine Electricity Company – proposed a
suggestion to the British Ministry of Colonies that aimed at raising a
one-million-Palestinian-pound loan from Jewish financers to relocate
Palestinian peasants’ communities in East Jordan while permission is
being obtained for Zionist settling in East Jordan. However, Weizmann’s
suggestion was denied due to the refusal of the British government. As
Weizmann’s reveals in his diary ‘Trial and Error’, he had agreed with
the British to hand over Palestine empty of its Arab residents in 1934.
This didn’t happen because of the Arab’s fierce resistance to the
process of expelling them from their homes.
After
the break out of the Great Strike and the Revolution of 1936, and during
the meetings of the executive committee of the Jewish Agency on the 19th
& 20th of May, 1936, Menachim Osiketchev put forward a
proposition that set forth the obligation of deporting the Palestinians
to Iraq. “I would like to see the Arabs going to Iraq in no time.
Agricultural conditions in Iraq are better than those in Israel if we
take the quality of soil into consideration, and they will be in an Arab
state and not a Jewish one,” he demonstrated.
Top
5-
Transfer Plans (1937 – 1948):
This
period witnessed a momentum and intensity in bringing up the issue of
transfer that had never been witnessed before, and have never been
after, in the history of the Zionist project. It seemed like things were
racing time in order to secure the best investment of international
circumstances arising from World War II for the purpose of building the
Zionist state. According to the statistics of Dr. Abdul Wahab El Massiri,
there were six transfer plans at the time as follows:
-
Soskef’s Plan (1937)
-
Vatis’s Plan (December 1937)
-
Rubin’s Plan (June 1937)
-
Al
Jazeera’s Plan (1938 - 1942)
-
Ben-Gurion’s Plan (1943 - 1948)
-
Youssef Shekinman’s Plan (1948)
During
this period also, three deportation committees were established. The
mission of these committees was to discuss the promotion of expulsion
plans. Two of these committees were founded by the Jewish Agency (1937 -
1943) whereas the third was formed by the ‘Israeli’ government in 1948.
Top
6-
Plans of 1937:
1937
was the most distinguished among others. During that year, the Royal
British Bill Committee’s Report was issued. The said report called for
portioning Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab one. The report
also went further. It contained a recommendation for settling down the
Jewish-Arab conflict which demanded the expulsion of Arabs from the
Jewish state. The same provided the transfer plans with international
legitimacy required.
Ben-Gurion embraced this recommendation and appreciated it in Volume IV
of his diaries, “After my initial reading of the report on 10.07.1937, I
overlooked a central point whose importance outdoes all other positive
points and surpasses all the defects of the report. If the words don’t
remain dry and dead, they shall give us something we have never had,
even when we used to rely on ourselves in the first and second houses:
compulsory expulsion of Arabs from the suggested areas of the Jewish
State.” He also carried on, “As soon as the Arab residents are evacuated
form the areas set for us, we shall have a real Jewish state for the
first time in our history within an agricultural frame crowded with one
million people who possess their own land. We have to root out all the
assumptions that say this thing is impossible from our hearts. It is
possible. We didn’t want to overtake the land from the Arabs, but
England wouldn’t give a part of the land it had promised to the Arabs.
This means that the Arabs shall have to move from our state into the
Arabic part.” Ben-Gurion further illustrates the possible variances in
practicing transfer against Arabs before and after the recommendations
of Bill Committee’s report was issued in his speech on 29.07.1937, “… So
far, we have settled in through expelling the residents from one place
to another… In some few places in the area of our colonization, we never
had to transfer the previous residents. In general, transfer was managed
through agreements with the farmers and ‘deni-deportation’ was only
necessary in very few places. Until now, transfer only occurred within
the areas of the mandate. However, the main difference with the
recommendation of the committee is that transfer shall be conducted on a
greater scale and extent from the Jewish area to the Arab one. If it
were possible to deport the Arab from one village to another within the
territories of the British mandate, it should be easy to find a
political or moral alibi that contradicts with expelling those Arabs
from the proposed area of the Jewish state… Is there any need to detail
the importance of having a continuous Jewish augmentation in the costal
valleys, Jezrayel valley (Marj Ibn Amer), Jordan Valley and Houlla?”
In
August 1937, the Jewish XXth Convention was held in Zurich,
Germany. It was exciting to notice that its protocols didn’t mention the
transfer principal though Chaim Weizmann delivered an important
political speech in which he discussed transfer for a long time.
Furthermore, he suggested a program to execute transfer. Though, Zionist
historians didn’t mention a single word of Weizmann’s address,
particularly the part relevant to transfer. The Zionist movement later
worked on annulling Weizmann’s address from its official records while,
in the same time, confirmed the speeches of some leaders who were less
important than Weizmann. Despite all of this, Moshe Jlikson, an editor
in Ha’aretz newspaper who attended the sessions of the convention,
disclosed the issue. “During the sessions, some of us were too
enthusiastic for the principle of deporting Arabs by using force of all
the lands, even after the declaration of the state, in no time,” the
editor revealed. Weizmann was somehow cautious when talking about
transferring the Arabs. He, for instance, said, “It is possible that we
deport 100.000 Arabs within 20 years, at a rate of 5000 per year.” He
also talked about founding a national fund dedicated to the Jewish
colonization in the areas that shall be evacuated of their Arab
residents. Although Ben-Gurion determined the methodology of conducting
transfer from the territories dedicated for the Jews by negotiating with
the neighboring Arab states in his speech at the Jewish Agency on
07.06.1938, what actually happened didn’t reflect what he was convinced
of as for the obligation of the ‘deni-deportation’.
Benny
Morris, a Zionist neo-historian, clarifies the issue, “Upon revising the
original protocols and the minutes of the sessions of the Jewish Agency
(which had not been censored or annulled), Ben-Gurion had evidently
believed during the 1930’s and 1940’s in the necessity of performing a
mass, compulsory deportation of the Arab Palestinians in order to avoid
their devastating challenges to the Jewish state. Yet, we shouldn’t
continuously and publicly talk about this issue. We should deal with it
confidentially and cautiously, as Hertzel said.” This opinion is
supported with quotes from Ben-Gurion’s diaries where he mentioned that
since January 1937, the Haganah had devised a military plan to occupy
the Arab part of Palestine except for Al Nakab, south of Bir Al Saba
within three stages. Therefore, the ‘Arabic Issue’ wasn’t settled in
agreement with the native populace, but through a military takeover that
made transfer inexorable. Sarskin’s and Kaplan Vetis’s plans were among
the Zionist plans suggested to in this year to deport Arabs. These plans
were distinguished with there clarity and supply of accurate details.
These plans were interested in three kinds of rural population to be
eradicated and transferred in the first period:
A.
Farmers.
B.
Villagers who had no land and who work in agricultural or
other economical sectors.
C.
Farmers who possess a plot of land whose area is less
than 3 km2.
He
estimated that 78.300 Arabs of these kinds existing in the Jewish state
belonged to:
1.
Residents of the costal areas such as Ramla, Jaffa,
Tolkarem, and Gaza. He suggested that 18000 of them be deported into the
territories of the Arab countries proposed in Bill partitioning project.
2.
Houlla area, mountains of the Higher Galilee, where 13000
would be deported into Syria.
3.
Other areas such as mountains of Galilee in Acre,
Tabaraya, Nazareth, Haifa, and Safad, where 35000 would be transferred
into the mountains and hills of East Jordan in Ajloun and in Balka.
4.
Bissan Valley, where 3500 capita were to be resettled in
Jordan Valley on the East Bank.
Top
7-
Plans of 1938 – 1948:
One
would notice that the Zionist plans of this period started to become
more interested in Iraq, more than other states, as a destination for
the Palestinian deportees. The following includes the most important
plans that were being discussed during that period:
A.
Edward Norman’s Plan:
Norman,
a Jewish millionaire from New York, left many documents pertaining to
his plans to transfer Arabs into Iraq and to his real attempts to
execute his plans between 1934 and 1938 in collaboration with the
leaders of the Yychof and other Zionists. In February 1934, he evidently
declared the headlines of his plan in a memo entitled ‘An Attitude about
the Arab Issue in Palestine’. In that memo, he determined that the goal
of his plan was to secure that Palestine is flooded with Jews gradually.
Concurrently, a place should be sought for the Arabs to go to since
‘they couldn’t be exterminated and they shall not all die’. He
considered Iraq as the perfect place for them or the potential homeland
for a considerable part of the ‘current residents of Palestine’. His
plan highlighted the advantages of this place because ‘there is no
difference between Palestine and Iraq, or any other part of the Arab
world’. Moreover, ‘frontiers that had been drawn as of the war were
barely known or recognized for many Arabs and the language, traditions,
customs and religion are the same’. Norman also saw that what
facilitated the execution of his plan was that Arabs lacked the
traditions of extreme adherence and belonging to the place since
‘Bedouin traditions were highly influential even among civilized
communities’. It seems that Norman’s plan of transfer to Iraq had found
ears in the British House of Commons. In one of the debate at the latter
that took place on 24.11.1938, Captain Calsip said, “Iraq might
contribute in settling down the conflict in Palestine by containing and
enfolding the Palestinians.” There is a proposition named after an event
called ‘Filby’. Filby was a British intelligence agent from the office
of India who had worked as an advisor for King Abdul Aziz Al Saud. To
make a long story short, a meeting attended by Filby, Chaim Weizmann and
Moshe Charit took place on 06.10.1939 and an idea was raised. Palestine,
pursuant to this idea, was to be surrendered, empty from all its Arab
residents, except for the City of Vatican in Ancient Jerusalem, to the
Jews in return for the Jews’ support to Ibn Saud’s ambition in leading
the future Arab League. Filby also suggested that 20 million pounds be
given to Ibn Saud provided that the whole project was executed. However,
the issue remained a traceless event due to the unfeasibility of cutting
a deal with Ibn Saud, according to Colonel Harelip Hoskins, Advisor of
the Department of State and personal envoy of President Roosevelt.
Hoskins sent a report saying that King Saud told him that he had
excluded Filby because he suggested a Zionist bribe. On the other hand,
Ben-Gurion’s perspective about transfer which was concluded in October
1940 might be summarized as follows:
-
Ben-Gurion definitely supported the commencement of
transfer and dedicated a broad part of his thinking.
-
He believed that there was no sin or crime in commencing
the ‘deni-deportation’.
-
Executing the ‘deni-deportation’ is necessary and
required regarding a part of the Arab residents.
-
It wasn’t necessary that the Zionist movement unveil the
idea of ‘deni-deportation’ for political reasons since it might
immensely damage the reputation of the movement.
-
On the other hand, the Zionist movement didn’t have to
prevent some other parties from sustaining the idea of transfer, but to
call on other states, such as Britain, to execute the same.
-
If an Arab ethnic minority remained in ‘Israel’, it
should be decently dealt with.
-
However, the presence of big Arab groups in ‘Israel’ will
cause the latter a lot of problems in the future.
Ben-Gurion pointed out Syria and Iraq as potential destinations for
transferring the Palestinians to in an article published in Jewish
Forenter on June 1942. He said, “Perhaps Syria and Iraq have an
economical and political interests in enhancing their stances before the
Turk and Persian neighbors through deporting Arab settlers into these
two countries. The only source of such settlers is Palestine.” It seems
that Ben-Gurion’s implications and indications came on the basis of the
outcome of the expeditionary visit Kaplan Vatis made in September 1941
to the Syrian Al Jazeera area. The latter said in his diaries,
“Undoubtedly, Al Jazeera’s is destined to be an enormous place to
contain people. There are a lot of new plots of lands and water that are
waiting to be exploited. If the governments wanted to solve the Jewish
issue, a solution could be reached by deporting a part of the Arab
residents in the land of ‘Israel’ to Syrian Al Jazeera, as well as the
Iraqi one.”
In
1942, Baltimore Zionist Convention was held in New York and its
resolutions remained unknown until General Patrick Harley, the personal
representative of President Franklin Roosevelt (1933 - 1945) in the
Middle East, submitted his report to the President in May 1943. The
report revealed, “The Zionist Association in Palestine indicated its
support to the following comprehensive program:
-
Founding a Jewish independent state that comprises
Palestine and perhaps East Jordan.
-
Probability of transferring the Arab residents from
Palestine into Iraq.
-
A Jewish leadership for the Middle East in the field of
economical evolution.”
In
1943, Ben-Gurion set off the legitimate propaganda pertaining to
expelling Arabs into Iraq or to a one unified Iraqi-Syrian state. He
managed to get the ex-American President Hubert Hones support his
campaign. As a result, two years later, precisely on 19.11.1945, Zionist
American deportation campaign started and was named ‘Hoover Plan’ which
was submitted to the White House. Correspondence and communications
between Hoover and Ben-Gurion verifies that the former, until the late
forties, was so active in plotting for deporting the Palestinians into
Iraq.
The
British Labor Party released a resolution in 1945 during his conference
held in December 1944 in favor of deporting Arabs from Palestine without
determining the destination.
Also,
in 1945, Edward Norman implored the White House directly in a letter
addressed to President Truman in which he claimed that ‘the solution of
the political issues through expulsion has become a recognized means’.
He also
wrote to the President to notify him, “Few years ago, I conducted a
detailed survey about Iraq’s capability to contain a high rate of
Palestinians.”
Top
8-
Transfer in 1948:
At the
beginning of 1948, the Zionist committees finished devising a plan for
settling one and a half million Jews in preparation to destroy Palestine
and replace the Arabs with the Jews. To facilitate this project,
Ben-Gurion gave his orders to occupy groups of villages and not one by
one so that ‘liberated zones could be formed’ where colonization would
take place over public properties and the properties of the exiled
deportees. By the end of March 1948, and before the war broke out, the
Jews had expelled fifty thousand Palestinians from their homes and
slaughtered 60 Palestinians in Saasaa massacre. The events that led to
this deportation started on 29.11.1947 as the partitioning resolution
was issued. In early April 1948, Ben-Gurion dusted his plan to conquer
Palestine, which he had prepared four years earlier, and introduced four
amendments to it before reaching its final formula as ‘Dalt Plan’.
Accordingly, he gave orders to his 65000-soldier, well-trained Zionist
army, who had experienced World War II, to destroy the Arab society in
Palestine. Orders were given to devastate the Palestinian institutions,
villages, cities, and, in short, eliminate all the human and
constructional traces of the Palestinian society. Dalt paln, as
published by Walid Khaldy, historian, stipulated that villages were to
be demolished, residents to be expelled beyond the frontiers of the
state – ‘Israel’ was not yet declared at the time – and any armed
resistance to be demised. Troops were to be left in the occupied
villages in order to inhibit their residents from coming back. The plan
specified in details all the sites that were going to be invaded and
occupied. Preparation to the destruction of Palestine comprehensively
included all details. For every village there was a file in which each
village’s characteristics were recorded: area, economy, corps planted,
mayor’s name, relatives, friends, enemies, and guest place, and the
well. These pieces of information were collected during apparent visits
made by the colonizers who used to dress in Arab costumes and talked
Arabic. They entered the village for different reasons and recorded
every single detail.
Against
all of this, the unarmed Palestinian people were defended by 2500
popular fighters distributed on some cities and villages, without being
effectively armed or under one command. Later, 5000 Arab volunteers
joined them in the Salvation Army who entered Palestine immediately
before the end of mandate. As an outcome of the Zionist 36-day invasion,
213 villages were occupied, 410000 capita were expelled and the
territories controlled by the Jews were tripled (from 1500 km2
to 5000 km2). Therefore, the state of ‘Israel’ was declared
over 13% of Palestine. So, the enemy had decided the battle early and
expelled more than half of the refugees before the regular Arab forces
entered Palestine. In addition to ‘Dalt’ military plan, the Zionists
used other means to displace the Palestinians, including:
-
Economical War Tactic: Ygal Alon, the enemy’s commander,
urged using it through his invitation to wage war against all
Palestinians, including children, without any discrimination and to
practice punishment since, as he said, the only possible issue. He also
refused all requests of ‘peace’ because ‘they shouldn’t be made unless a
powerful strike is made, and these strikes must hit their economy’.
-
Psychological War: This war comprised the campaigns of
‘whispers propaganda’, ‘warnings made by friends’, continuous
subjugation, absolute intimidation, and exploiting the terrorism of Lehy
and Aragon gangs.
-
Massacres: Deir Yassine’s Massacre was the turning point
in the War of 1948 and one of the most decisive factors in causing the
displacement of great part of the Palestinians. Ben-Gurion capped his
victory in Deir Yassine’s Massacre when he exhibited the survivors of
the massacre in their ragged clothes and desperate conditions in trucks
that traveled in the streets of West Jerusalem so that Jews could take a
look at them and had a chance to insult them by spitting and swearing.
The scene was surely more barbaric than that of the Middle Ages. Another
massacre took place on 29 and 30.10.1948 at Al Dawaimeh village. The
massacre there was as brutal as Deir Yassine’s. Thirty five massacres
were recorded during the War of 1948; 25 occurred in Galilee because it
was a part of the Arab state in the portioning proposition.
The
Zionist war demolished 48 Arab villages out of 531. Two thirds of the
531 were completely devastated while the residue, where Jewish families
lived, was destroyed in a less scale.
However, the new surveys conducted had indicated that 89% of the
villages were displaced due to a direct military action whereas only 10%
due to the psychological war.
Top
9-
Transfer from 1948 – 1993 (Oslo Accords):
In
1948’s exodus, Zionism didn’t succeed in realizing its long-waited dream
of a pure Jewish state by cleansing the native Palestinians. An Arab
Palestinian minority remained over the land of Palestine in 1948. This
minority was estimated at 150000 capita. This was the first failure that
hit the Zionist project. It was unable to inflict its perspective about
the ‘final solution of the Arab issue’ as had previously occurred in
other relocation experiments that used displacement, genocide, coupling
with the native, or a mixture of these methodologies. It is definitely
due to certain special and objective reasons mainly because the Zionist
experiment is different from other colonization experiments. The
following are among these reasons:
-
It started at the end of the nineteenth century i.e. at a
later date than other experiments.
-
It didn’t occur in one of the distant places of the old
world like the Americas, Australia or New Zealand, but in the middle of
the eastern part of the Arab world, in a region that is highly populated
and has a long historical extension and profound civilized traditions
and has a human and civilization extension that goes beyond Palestine.
The
above reasons made displacement hard to a certain extent. Also, genocide
was impossible and made the Palestinians issue (regarding population and
history) obstinate before the colonial relocation solution which had
been practiced in other areas at previous historic times. Yet the
Zionist mind which is ruled by myths and legends remained adamant and
inflexible in front of these facts and insisted on carrying on with the
exodus that had happened in 1948 by displacing those who remained, then
cleansing historic Palestine from the Arab existence. Zionist officials,
as well as the entire Zionist association, had taken many procedures
which implied that their minds were still obsessed with transfer, as a
concept and practice. As soon as the War of 1948 came to an end, the
committee of ‘displacing Arabs’ which is composed from many governmental
agencies and department immediately tentatively decided in February 1949
that there was an obligation to exile the Arabs of Al Majdal. During the
spring of 1950, Moshe Daian, who succeeded Ygal Alon in the command of
the South Area, and his associates started executing the decision and
they expelled the Arabs of Al Majdal into Gaza. Moreover, Zionism kept
on endeavoring to create adequate circumstances to displace Palestinians
into Iraq. This is revealed by the confidential documents opened to
public access by the British Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1986 and
which recorded the period of 1955. From the tone of the same documents,
it seems that the British government had undertaken to provide the
adequate circumstances for dislocating the Palestinians. Unquestionably,
this role is retrieved by the United States today. This is not
surprising. Britain has always been among the biggest supporters of the
idea of displacing Palestinians into Iraq and Syria and settling them
there, which is the second phase of transfer, and with it, transfer is
achieved.
Documents of 1955:
Part of
these documents contained the correspondence of the British government
made with its embassies in the Middle East, in particular its embassy in
Baghdad and the British Development Office in the Middle East. These
correspondences discussed the issue of containing and naturalizing more
Palestinian refugees in Iraq.
Most
eminent among all is a letter by the British Development Office in
Beirut to the British Embassy in Baghdad on 25.04.1955 about the
possibility of finding jobs for Palestinian refugees in Iraq. The
Embassy replied as follows:
“We
have discussed the perspective pertaining to finding jobs for the
refugees in Iraq with Mr. Pegout, the representative of the Welfare
Agency in Iraq, and came up with the following:
The
Iraqi possibility in the same scope is good and preferable. There are
plenty of developmental works under execution. Also, there is a great
expansion in job opportunities. These opportunities are likely to
increase within the coming years. It is true that wages and salaries
aren’t very high and they may not attract workers from overseas;
however, these considerations are changing and there is a great tendency
that they would go higher in association with a shortage in manpower.”
The letter added, “It is true that Iraq, for political reasons, is not
currently able to contain sufficient numbers of refugees, but its need
to contain more work force shall lead to an increase in the refugees’
flow. We don’t consider how much Iraq could provide on the short run. We
consider what it could provide on the long run since it is the place
capable of more and more enclosing the refugees and integrating them in
life, and possibly dissolve and suck them forever. This is what Pegout
also thinks about the issue.”
Afterward, the economical section at the UNERWA set up a detailed report
about the economical capacities of Iraq on the long run in which the
focus was on the possibilities of naturalizing the refugees. This report
was submitted to British Development Office which, in turn, sent the
same to the British Embassy in Baghdad on 17.08.1955 for comment and
suggestions.
The
British efforts cannot be separated from the subsequent Zionist attempts
that occurred during the triplet attack on Egypt in 1956 in order to
exploit the attack to displace Palestinians. This was the title of the
project that Ben-Gurion submitted to the French Prime Minister Moulier
on 22.10.1956. Moshe Daian mentions the details of the said project in
his diary ‘The Story of My Life’. Further to applying the colonial
mentality similar to Syches-Picot that is capable of changing geography
and the borders of places, Ben-Gurion, in this project, aimed at finding
a solution for the refugees residing in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and the
West Bank and deporting them into a non-neighboring country to
Palestine. He wanted to naturalize them in central Iraq and not in its
extremities, taking into consideration that the area and oil resources
of Iraq as well as its remoteness from the Zionist entity allows to
contain great numbers of refugees. Ben-Gurion had demonstrated the
formula of his project as follows, “Jordan doesn’t possess the basic
components of a survivable independent country; thus, it should be
partitioned: areas to the east of Jordan River must be annexed to Iraq
in return for the latter’s commitment to receive the Palestinian
refugees and naturalizing them in the center of the country; the western
part of Jordan would then be a part of (Israel).”
This
project only reaped failure because it refuted and gainsaid the project
of the American President Dwain Eisenhower, who considered returning the
greatest part of refugees who were deported and displaced in 1948 as the
just solution for their cause. As a result of Eisenhower’s pressure, the
Zionist entity tentatively agreed on returning 10000 refugees. However,
it was only a lip service maneuver which had never been actually
executed.
It is
worth mentioning that Ehud Barak re-proposed the same number when
discussing the ‘right to return’ of the refugees in the negotiations
with the Palestinian Authority in Camp David II in July 2000.
The
Zionist enemy’s failure to realize his dreams and perspectives during
the triplet attack didn’t avert seizing this opportunity to transfer the
residents of some border villages on the Syrian frontiers. In the eve of
the thirtieth of October 1956, the enemy expelled the villagers from
Akrad Al Bakara and Akrad Al Fanama in Houlla area. The Zionist army
gave the villagers the chance to opt their deportation destination:
either to Syria or to Shaab, in the occupied territories of 1948. The
villagers opted to go to Syria in their third displacement. They were
first displaced in the spring of 1948 and lasted until 1949. However,
after the truce, they came back to their villages. Their second
displacement took place in March 1951 when the Zionist army besieged the
two villages and transferred them into Shaab where they stayed until
1952 when only a number of them were permitted to come back to their
villages. The rest was prevented from returning although a decision
rendered by the Zionist Supreme Court ordered that the residue return.
After
that, expelling and displacing the Palestinians entered a recession
period until the breakout of 1967 War when it was waken up once again
and put into effect. A partial, but vast, deportation that included tens
of thousands from the West bank and Gaza Strip took place in that war.
The deportees were sent into Jordan and Egypt. They were estimated to
reach 300000 people. They were called ‘expatriates’. However, the actual
exodus in the 1967 was conducted against the Arab Syrian residents of
the Golan when the Zionist army outcast 180000 capita, who are the
entire population of the Golan. Only five villages were excluded from
the exodus: Massaada, Bekaata, Majdal Chams, Ein Kinya and Al Fajer,
which are still ferociously resisting a certain pattern of transfer that
is based on eliminating the Arab Syrian identity and replacing it with
the ‘Israeli’ one.
As the
Palestinian resistance’s activities commenced in the early seventies in
Gaza Strip, the Zionist army devised a plan to expel the refugees from
Gaza Strip into within and without the Strip. This plan was disclosed by
Maarif’s reporter on 02.02.1971, “Without any orders from the higher
command, the army is exercising deportation against the families of the
fighters from one place into another within the Strip. Besides, and
under higher orders, the army is transferring some families from Gaza
into Jordan.” That plan was supervised by Moshe Daian, the ‘Israeli’ War
Minister. The enemy used many methods of destruction, torture and
killings to achieve that objective. In Jabalia Camp, 1011 houses were
destroyed, while 598 houses were leveled in Al Shatae. In addition, 400
houses were changed into debris in Rafah Camp. In the meantime, the
‘Israeli’ enemy kept on claiming many anonymous Arab corpses were being
constantly found in the streets of Gaza and its suburbs. The number of
these corpses in November and December 1970 was over one hundred
cadavers according to the ‘Israeli’ confessions. Most of these dead
bodies which were found in Gaza were for Arab detainees who were
assassinated by the ‘Israeli’ authorities within their detainment camps
either by torture or intentional elimination.
They
forced men to take off their clothes and whipped them on their thighs.
They also took women’s clothes off in the middle of the streets to
search them. Soldiers stole watches and jewelry. The nurses of Gaza
Hospital complained that the Border Guards made them undress their
clothes while traveling in a bus to their work for the purpose of
searching. In addition, the occupation installed a grand detainment near
the beachside in Gaza for interrogation where detainees were also
tortured. In 1970, and during the events of Black September, the idea of
the alternative homeland was proposed by General Ariel Sharon when he
offered the Zionist entity’s help to the Palestinian Liberation
Organization in overthrowing King Hussein. In a press interview in 1974,
Sharon declared that it was possible to talk with the leaders ‘rioters’
and help them topple King Hussein and installing a Palestinian state in
Jordan.
However, his statement was intensively reacted to and criticized by the
United States and the Zionist Right Wing. In order to ease the pressure
of the Right on him, Sharon, one week later, declared that ‘negotiations
with the rioters’ leaders, if held, shall not be about Judah and
Samaria, but about eliminating the Hashimite regime. Few months later,
he reconfirmed his opinion during a lecture he gave to some American
academics through which he explained to them in details the
Jordanian-Palestinian dilemma, “(Israel) has to choose one of two
hazards: the first is an enemy Palestinian state to be created in Jordan
and the second is to leave the Palestinian issue unsolved, and hanging
over the head of (Israel) forever. I personally prefer the first hazard
to the second.” Similar to yesterday, Sharon still sees that the
negotiations proposed with King Hussein about the West Bank and Gaza
Strip ‘shall not nip in the bud of the formation of a Palestinian state;
therefore, we have to draw a starting line for solving the problem: to
the west of Jordan, a state with Jewish majority is to be formed (in
addition to increasing the settlements) whereas on the other side, to
the east of Jordan, a state with Palestinian majority shall be formed.’
Sharon, however, didn’t decide where to get the required Palestinians to
form such majority. It should be noted that the attempts aiming at
solving the Palestinian issue via the Jordanian option way back to 1948
when the British imposed the division of Palestine between (Israel) and
Jordan, implementing, according to their own discretion, the
partitioning resolution by expelling the Palestinians away whereas the
resolution set forth the creation of two states: an (Israeli) one and a
Palestinian one. In the aftermath of June 1967 war, the Zionist entity
suggested involving Jordan in solving the Palestinian issue and it
seemed that King Hussein responded to this proposal. He later suggested
on 15.03.1972 that a United Arab Kingdom be installed so that it
encircles the West Bank and Jordan, by the PLO refused this proposal. On
22.06.1977, the King also suggested another plan that is based on
erecting a federacy, and then changed into a confederacy in 1983 as a
settlement between the plan of Fas Summit and Regan’s plan. Once again,
this plan wasn’t approved of. Later, on 11.02.1985, an agreement was
signed in Amman between Yasser Arafat and King Hussein that was founded
on the principle of ‘land for peace’ and Palestinian self-governance
within a confederacy between two states: Jordan and Palestine. In spite
of that, King Hussein startled everyone when he declared on 19.02.1986
that he could no longer go on with the political coordination with the
PLO.
Top
10-
1976 – 1993 (Oslo Accords):
In
1976, the Zionist entity once again tried to confine the ‘demographic
threat’ that the Arabs of 1948 represent against this entity’s fate and
capacity to complete filling the Palestinian land conquered in 1948.
This was evident immediately after the immortal Land Day in the 30th
of March, when a document, which was addressed to the ‘Israeli’
government, prepared by the Governor of the North Brigade, Israel King,
and named after him, evaluated the Arabs status and political
orientation and the threats they represent on the Zionist entity. The
said document described the future coping with the Arabs of 1948 as
‘magical’. The document focused on northern Palestine, and particularly
discussed the demographical issue and the aspects of ‘Arab national
extremism’. The terms and expressions used in the document categorize
Arabs of 1948 as enemies who are more dangerous than those who are
beyond the border of Palestine. Some of the points that discussed the
demographical issue and the ‘Arab national extremism’, we hereby mention
the following:
1.
Arabs in ‘Israel’ are increasing at a rate of 5.9% per
year whereas the Jewish natural population increase is 1.5%. This issue
is intensified in the north where there is a big Arab populace. In the
middle of 1975, the Arab population in the north became 250000 capita in
contrast with the 289000 Jewish capita.
Researching on the basis of districts, it is verified that Arabs in the
Galilee form 67% of the total population and 46% in Marj Ibn Amer. As
Jews increase by 759 capita in the north, the Arabs increase by 9035
capita. According to this intensity, the Arabs in 1978 shall form over
51% of the population of the northern zone.
As for
the sense of national extremist, and this is how I evaluate the Arab
residents, their increase in Galilee embraces a threat that shall
jeopardize our control and opens the door for military forces to enter
‘Israel’ the north. It is connected with intensifying the extreme
nationalism among the Arabs of ‘Israel’ and their readiness to help in
the same.
2.
Arab ‘Israelis’ gained a new national thrust since the
six-day war. The policy of free communication with the Bank and the
opened bridges led to renewing the connections among the Arabs of the
Jerusalem and Judah mountains and the Palestinians in east Jordan with
the Arab ‘Israelis’. Such connections formed the bases of removing the
slogans of national extremist struggle in ‘Israel’. This unpreventable
orientation has had a new left wing after the results of Yum Kipour and
enhanced after the events in the international policy which led to
recognizing the PLO that held high the flag of struggle for the
Palestinian issue. Recently, we have recalled the UN resolutions as for
the borders of ‘Israel’ in 1947, which don’t include great parts of
‘Israel’ today. The Arab ‘Israeli’ has become impatient so he moved into
nationalism, though in expression only, at this stage.
The
document also sees that the increase in the Arab population from 150000
people in 1948 into over 430 in 1975 gives the national extremism power
and chance that time is working in its favor. This is also applied on a
part of the northern area where Arabs exist in vast and near places.
Therefore, the document calls on the ‘Israeli’ government to take into
consideration that at one of the antagonistic stages of political
activity against the state, the issue of conducting a referendum in the
north, where Arabs are the majority, shall break out. Such activities
will be directed from abroad, but whoever holds the same shall be Arab
left-wingers nationalists within the state. In addition, the same
document draws attention to the organized activity of acquiring lands in
the northern area by the Arabs such as in upper Nazareth, Akre and Marj
Ibn Amer. Against all of that, the document suggests:
1.
Broadening and intensifying Jewish settling in Arab mass
areas where the number of the Arabs exceeds the number of Jews as well
as examining the possibilities of decreasing the Arab saturated areas. A
special attention must be given to the northwestern borders of the state
and Nazareth. So, compass reading and intensity of execution must be
conducting in a different manner than usually adopted. In parallel, new
laws that limit Arab settling in different parts of the state must be
passed.
2.
All together, a powerful and stable Jewish leadership in
upper Nazareth and Akre must be sought so that it could encounter the
anticipated critical developments.
3.
Adopting the policy of ‘reward and punishment’ (under
applicable laws) with leaders and areas that show any aspects of loyalty
to Zionist state.
4.
In order to eliminate the advantage of the national
struggle and representing the Arab-Israelis that Rakah Party possesses,
and to search for those who are in the middle, another party for the
Labor Party that supports equality, human and cultural values and
language, social strive and peace must be created. Institutions must be
prepared that their existence and control shall not be visible.
5.
Entire coordination among the governmental agencies,
Hestedrot and local authorities must be made, particularly and strictly
on the execution level.
6.
Exert all possible efforts to induce all Zionist parties
to a national unanimous consent to the issue of the Arab-Israelis in
order to keep them away from the internal political conflicts.
The
document concludes as follows: “We have to recall and learn from the
experience of other countries which has ethnic minorities that
exaggerated and undisciplined tolerance doesn’t lead to objectives
already planned, and this equation is absolutely true as for minorities
such as the Arabs in (Israel).”
Besides
King’s document, 1976 witnessed Sharon’s comeback to suggest his
intentions regarding the ‘alternative homeland’ during negotiations he
held with all the political spectrum of the Zionist entity starting with
the Labor Party and reaching Yuri Efniri. He suggested that ‘Israel’
take advantage of the events taking place in Lebanon and start
negotiations with Palestinians, but about what? Sharon answers, “We have
to say to Syria and Egypt that they are playing with their destiny and
they can only count on ‘Israel’ to solve their problems.” In December
1976, Sharon declared his desire to form an independent list, and set
certain conditions to join the Lekud such as the approval of Lekud to
his expression that says ‘Jordan is ‘Israel’s east border and that
solving the region’s problems lies in installing a Palestinian state in
Jordan’.
He once
again declared that he was ready to meet PLO leaders ‘yet not to discuss
the Bank’. Sharon also asked Yuri Efniri to arrange a meeting between
him and Yasser Arafat that year because, in his opinion, they had
something to talk about. He wanted to discuss toppling the so that
Arafat could become the Governor of Jordan. Efniri says that Arafat
didn’t even agree on the idea of the meeting. Arafat told King Hussein
the same story when they met together for days after PLO forces had
pulled out of Beirut and King Hussein, in turn, reported the same story
to a Kuwaiti newspaper.
The
invasion of summer 1982 also endeavored to find a final solution for the
Palestinian issue and an ‘alternative homeland’ though this aspect
remained in the shadows throughout the war. Sabra and Chatila Massacre
of September 1982 was one of the means to achieve this aspect. Sharon’s
main priorities when he planned for the war on Lebanon were to set the
scene for annexing the West Bank to the Zionist entity and erecting a
Palestinian state in east Jordan. Also, the relation of the West Bank
with invading Lebanon had repeatedly emerged to the surface during the
war, yet the track it followed pushed the whole issue into shadows
again. There are many scripts that shed some light on matter:
Isaac
Rabin told Yedout Ahranot in an interview on 22.07.1982, “As for
political goals on the long run from the war on Lebanon, there are some
members in the Lekud government who had thought that after achieving the
main goals of this war, we should keep on using the army to erect a
Palestinian state in Jordan by replacing the Hashimite regime with a
Palestinian one. Those assumed that it would be the only solution for
the Palestinian issue so the ‘Israeli’ sovereignty could be practiced
upon Judah, Samaria and Gaza Strip.”
Ourit
Shohot, the Israeli editor, in his article ‘The Rule of the State’
wrote, “In today’s concepts, we may call the plan that is going to
discussed later ‘The New Order in Jordan’.” Nonetheless, this plan
didn’t mass-influence the ‘Israeli’ public, who is by instinct doubtful
of everything, because it was unfeasible. However, the Jordanians always
dealt with the issue with profound concern, as Acher Sasar, a specialist
in Jordanian affairs at Shilwah Institute, says. “They are calling the
process an explicit name: the demographic aggression, due to the means
‘Israel’ used, according to the Jordanians, to topple King Hussein and
erecting a Palestinian state. This means was the mass expulsion of
Palestinians from the West Bank into Jordan after or before official
attachment. During the Lebanese war, some options emerged and had they
been achieved, they could have accelerated the tracks of erecting the
New ‘Order in Jordan’ and this would have been a fulfillment to Sharon’s
old dream,” Shohot added. Researchers Feldman and Richenter- Kegans also
wrote, “The war of Lebanon had explicit objectives and two other implied
goals which were supposed to be the automatic outcome of achieving other
goals. The first goal aimed at weakening the PLO in the West Bank, which
was to help in imposing self-governance in those territories, and the
second was to find a track that would lead to overthrowing King Hussein
and installing a Palestinian state.”
When
Sharon was attacked in Foreign Affairs and Security Committee of the
Knesset in June 1982, which was involved in discussing fighting Syrians,
he repeated his detailed perspective about the Middle East, “I have
never thought of the possibility of making great achievements on the
Syrian front. You knew very well that I have always believed that using
force is not always useful. On the Egyptian front, I believed in
achieving military victories, yet on the Jordanian front, I believe that
we could reach the most important of these triumphs.” When Isaac Rabin
shouted at him, “Have you lost your mind? Papers will be issued tomorrow
with headlines that we want to attack Jordan,” Sharon withdrew his words
immediately and said, “What I said was about old concepts I had.” The
next day Sharon told his intimate companions at the Knesset, including
the correspondent of the French ‘Le Matin’, “If I were the Prime
Minister of the government of ‘Israel’, I would give King Hussein twenty
four hours to give up his throne and erecting a Palestinian state in
Jordan.”
During
the years of the great uprising (1987-1993), Zionist entity boldly
expelled many Palestinian elites and leaders who were most effective in
the track of the intifada into Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon. The most
eminent expulsion was when the Zionist entity evicted 400 leaders of
Hamas and Jihad Movements into Marj El Zuhur in Lebanon in 1992.
However, such expulsions were temporary. The enemy, under the force of
new factors, particularly the endurance of the exiled, had to allow
their return to their homeland, Palestine.
Top
11- Transfer Plans: From Oslo Accords to Al
Aqsa Intifada:
Oslo
Accords was a crossroad in the history of the Arab-Zionist conflict that
the entity tried to use to the further extent in order to construct and
install ‘Great Israel’, the modified version of ‘Grand Israel’. The
entity wanted to impose its economical, political and security
domination over the entire Arab world through the project of ‘the New
Middle East’ and to go on with executing the program of Baltimore
Convention of 1942 which included:
1.
Founding a Jewish independent state that comprises
Palestine and East Jordan too.
2.
Probability of transferring the Arab residents from
Palestine into Iraq.
3.
A Jewish leadership for the Middle East in the scope of
economical evolution.”
The
Zionist enemy’s attempts to invest Oslo Accords went in two directions:
The
first was to impose naturalizing the Palestinians in the Diaspora
countries, if possible, through investing the emerging circumstances
after the Gulf War II. In this direction, many consistent attempts were
made, particularly regarding naturalizing them in Iraq. Laith Shbailat,
the Jordanian striver, disclosed that during a confidential, closed
meeting with President Saddam Hussein, the latter revealed a new secret
saying that many Arab leaders and politicians had asked him to improve
his relations with ‘Israel’ as it was the only way to solve the Iraqi
dilemma and since ‘Israel’ can lead the way to remove the sanctions
imposed on the Iraqi people. Shbailat says, “Saddam Hussein told me that
he refused all these offers and even warned those who brought them up
that it was the last time that he’d allow discussing them.” Dr. Lara
Drick, an American expert and specialist in strategic policy, member to
the executive committee of the International Consolidation of Human
Rights, committed to clarifying what Iraq had to do for the Zionists,
when she warned about the projects of naturalizing the Palestinian
refugees in the Arab states, especially Iraq. In a meeting organized by
the Palestinian Authority’s Ministry of Information, she said, “Many
great powers have renewed their offer to the Iraqi government in return
for removing the sanctions and besiege.”
She
added, “The American administration in 1993 had suggested a project to
naturalize the Palestinians in west Iraq in the desert area. Recently,
the same issue was brought up after the crisis of the International
Inspectors between the United Nations and Iraq. Another plan was devised
during the last two years to naturalize the Palestinians residing in
Lebanon in the Gulf region,” indicating that the plan originally comes
from Belgium devised by a pro-Zionist lobbyist and suggested by a
Congress delegate that have visited the Gulf. The American expert also
pointed out that Gilman, a New York Senate, and the Head of the
International Relations Committee in the Congress, formed a delegate
that visited Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates in late March
and early April of 1997. The discussions with the Gulf officials focused
on the issue of refugees and the possibility of containing about 30000
to 40000 refugees in each of the Gulf States in addition to naturalizing
the Palestinians currently working in these countries. Drick believes
that the refusal of this plan by the Gulf States revived the plan of
naturalizing Palestinians in Iraq.
The
second direction focused on facing the ‘demographic bomb’ of the
Palestinians, especially in the 1948 areas, by conducting an exodus
against them without declaring the same. It the worth mentioning that
the term ‘demographic bomb’ used by the Zionist is merely a racist term
derived from the racist Zionism which aims at constructing a pure
‘Israeli’, Arab-free state. This aim has evolved in a comprehensive
study conducted by Zionist experts that began in 1944 and ended in 1997.
The purpose of the study was to predict the Zionist entity’s figure
within the coming 25 years, i.e. until 2020 AD. Two hundred fifty
proficient technical experts from all the Zionist university faculties,
offices, architectural companies, ministries and the Jewish Agency
participated in the survey in addition to foreign experts. The study was
conducted under the supervision of Adam Mazor. The study was released in
18 volumes entitled ‘Perspectives about the Future of ‘Israel’ until
2020 AD’. The survey mentioned the shortage of land controlled by the
Zionist entity which is not sufficient for expansion. It is noted that
the project’s main platform when calculating the issue was the
Palestinian land occupied in 1948 and in the plots in occupied Syrian
Golan Heights, and disregarded the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The project
warily discusses the population number because it is directly relevant
to the Zionist entity’s ability to attract the Jews of the world to
immigrate into it. This is why the population estimation of 2020
mentioned therein doesn’t include the Jewish immigration but to the
minimum extent. The population in 2020, according to the project, is
estimated to reach 8.100.000 capita, out of which 5.832.000 are Jews, at
an annual increase of 1% per annum only, and 2.268.000 Palestinians at a
3% increase per year. This means that the Palestinians rate, including
the residents of Jerusalem, will increase from 23% in 1994 to about 40%
in 2020. But the Zionist entity can’t accept such a fact. Therefore, it
is trying to find other methods to keep the Jewish majority high. Salman
Abu Sitta comments on the topic, “Carefully studying the Palestinian and
Jewish distribution in ‘Israel’ between 1994 and 2020 according to the
‘Israeli’ project, we shall find out that ‘Israel’ intends to effect a
new ethnic cleansing, without explicitly mentioning the same.”
Abu
Sitta continues, “Comparing the numbers and the populace distribution
between 1994 and 2020 shall only lead to the following results:
Transferring the Palestinians from their gatherings in Galilee and the
triangle into the center of the country where the Jewish density exists
so that they lose their agricultural and economical base and become
wagers for the Jews. In return, the project heartens the Jews to move
from the center into Galilee, the triangle and Nakab under the
temptations of tax exempts and economical support so that the Arab
population extension from north to south, which is next to the truce
line, is cut off. It is also noted that this redistribution thwarts the
Palestinians from forming a population majority in any of the so called
‘natural areas’ which are the smallest administrative division in the
country.”
Abu
Sitta’s goes on with his conclusions, “For the same reason, ‘Israel’,
before releasing the project, paved a broad highway (No. 6) from north
to the south which penetrated the Palestinian territories in ‘Israel’
that takes over some of them or divides others into isolated areas
without economically benefiting them or link them to the same highway.”
Hertzilia
Document:
Zionist
talks and plans about transfer remained hidden during Oslo. They need
conclusion and amnesty to be revealed. As Al Aqsa Intifada broke out,
they were revealed and trickled into public discourse. They have become
titles for conventions and Zionists from all the political and
ideological spectrums discussed them. We can say that they have become
the most renowned modern manifestations of the concept of transfer.
Hertzilia Convention, held between 19 and 21 December 2000, i.e. three
months after the Intifada had broken out, and the document produced by
it are the most prominent. The convention took place at Dan Akadia in
Hertzilia and entitled ‘Insubordination Balance and National Security –
Orientations of Public Policy’. Three hundred figures from the Zionist
elite participated in the convention. Moshe Katsav, the Zionist
President, Ehud Barak, Zionist PM at the time, Benjamin Netanyahu,
Baraks’s predecessor, Ariel Sharon, Barak’s successor, and Shaoul Mofaz,
Chief of Staff at the time, were among the participants. The convention
was presided by Oozy Arad, the political advisor of the former PM
Netanyahu, said that ‘whoever failed to appear at the convention isn’t
considered among the ‘Israeli Supreme Leadership’.
The
Zionist press, however, said it was as important as the International
Economic Convention that is held annually at Davos, Switzerland. The
press also assimilated it to Bladberg Forest Convention in Holland,
which was created as a secret seminar to study the problems of the world
and coordinate dominating it.
Preparatory committees preceded Hertzilia Convention. These committees
studied many topics which were discussed by the participants. Among
these topics came the following:
-
Defense and prevention balance of the state of ‘Israel’
-
War against the Intifada
-
War with the neighboring countries
-
War with the farther circle
-
Palestinian demographic threat
-
‘Israeli’ technological superiority
The
convention summarized the outcome of its deliberations and discussions
in a detailed document that would include the recommendations which
would be submitted to the decision makers. In the middle of March 2001,
the document was published. The preface of the summary said that the
research of the convention realized that ‘Israel’ has reached a
crossroads which shall decide whether it will thrive or fade away, and
that deciding the issue lies within its hands.
The
most relevant issue in the document which is directly linked to transfer
is the demographical one which is Zionist entity encounters in the West
Bank and Gaza Strip, in addition to the Palestinians living in the lands
occupied in 1948. Therefore, the document highly focused on this issue.
Discussing how to cope with this threat, many criminal solutions were
brought forward which ranged from compulsory reproduction control among
Palestinians and transfer that comprises the residents of the Bank,
Strip and 1948. And as Zionist journalist, Munir Shilg, confessed in
Ha’aretz (23.03.2001), ‘the document’s recommendations were terrifying
in the general spirit, and they went with the vision and orientation of
the extreme right, who, according to Shlig, couldn’t have ratified
better recommendations to reflect its untamed bohemian ideology’.
The
document described the ‘demographic threat’ as follows:
“The
Palestinian people doubles itself once every twenty years. Its annual
increase is 4.2%, which is among the world’s highest. The birth rate
among Moslems and Palestinian Christians in ‘Israel’ is 4.6 per woman.
At the time being, one of five ‘Israeli’ is an Arab Moslem. In the
coming twenty years, the rate shall be one out of three.” According to
the document, this situation implies a hazardous security significance
which is relevant to the vitality of ‘Israel’ as a Jewish state. It also
has an economical significance. The increasing Arab population in
‘Israel’ has social and economical characteristics which can change into
a rock that burdens the shoulders of ‘Israel’ and its welfare since the
work force of the Palestinians in 1948 is very low (women and children
don’t work). In return, the Palestinians consume more public services
(education, health and insurances) than their dedicated rates.
Accordingly, the document recommends the cancellation of insurance
allocations for families with many children. It also recommends settling
Jewish residents in Palestinian dense areas, particularly in Galilee and
Nakab in order to avoid a geographic extension of an Arab majority in
these areas. This of course reminds us of King’s document. Besides,
Hertzilia document calls for a population exchange between ‘Israel’ and
the Palestinian state, which means to expel the Palestinians of 1948 and
the Palestinians in Jerusalem.
The
document also calls for transferring the Palestinians of the West Bank
and the Gaza Strip without mentioning the same directly but through
linking it to a certain event, which is comparison. In the same extent,
the document said that there shall be a need for finding an exit in a
place other than ‘Israel’ – may be in east Jordan – to settle the Bank’s
Palestinians if they don’t abstain the frequency of their reproduction.
And as long as the Jewish intellect plans to amass ten million Jews in
Palestine, and as long as water and land resources are limited, transfer
shall be high on the Zionist agenda.
The
figures who support the transfer process have reached the political and
security decision making positions in the Zionist entity as Sharon
topped the government. During his term of office, transfer has come to
the surface and became a part of the internal discussions of Zionist
parties. And when the Labor Party demanded to shelve the figures of
extremism in the government, beginning with Rahbaam Zaifi since his
party official adopts the transfer option, Zaifi retaliated by saying
that transfer is a fixed ‘Israeli’ policy that has been practiced since
installing the Zionist entity and still, and not just a party’s or a
political movement’s stance. The Labor party has practiced this policy
for years. Thus, Zaifi considered his party (Moulidet Movement) ‘an
extension to the ‘Israeli’ heritage and not just extrinsic’. In an
article published in Maarif (04.03.2001), Zaifi said, “We do adopt the
transfer concept. And what’s wrong with that? The transfer we are
suggesting is voluntary or by humane agreement whereas Mabai party
adopted compulsory transfer.” Zaifi retrieves the compulsory transfer of
the residents of Al Lid and Al Ramla during the exodus of 1948 and says,
“When we liberated (!!) we didn’t know how to deal with the civilians,
so we asked the command about it. Commander Isaac Rabin ordered that we
deport them and said that it was an order issued by Ben-Gurion, the PM
and the Minister of Defense at that time. We have done as ordered. Does
the Labor Party know that?” Zaifi concludes asking and defying the
leaders of the Labor Party to answer him if they really have a real idea
about solving the Arab-‘Israeli’ conflict other than the transfer. Of
course, Rahbaam Zaifi, who was assassinated by the Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine, is not the only one who publicly calls for the
transfer. Most of the prominent figures of the Zionist current and who
call themselves ‘the supporters of the ‘Israeli’ peace camp’ share
Zaifi’s public debate. The retired General Shlomo Gazette, Ex-chief of
the Military Intelligence Unit, is one of those. After the convention of
Hertzilia, he wrote an article in Yadout Ahranot (28.03.2001), “As a
conclusion of reading and hearing the demographers’ anticipations, it
became clear to me that if we don’t take the necessary and vital
measures, ‘Israel’, as a Jewish secured state, with a Jewish majority,
shall extinct.” He adds asking, “What are we supposed to do?” “First, we
acknowledge the presence of danger and the necessity to devise a
national contingency policy. Second, we have to take measures that foil
the increase of Palestinians within the territories of 1948 (How?).
Third, we have to take measures to increase the Jewish residents in the
state through immigration and mass Judaization for every non-Jewish and
who desires to become a Jew.” Gazette considers that living in a
contingency atmosphere is a necessity until the entity gets rid of the
Arab Palestinians.
Against
that, the question which is to be raised is: Is this kind of thinking
today is just a phenomenon, or is it an overwhelming and prevailing
atmosphere that is growing to a certain end within the entire Zionist
assembly?
Meir
Stigeltis, the Zionist author, says, “Time is working for them steadily
but not so fast. Discussions are about the powers which support transfer
as a comprehensive solution for the Palestinian-‘Israeli’ conflict.
Supporters of transfer are growing everyday. And as of now, the issue of
transferring the Palestinians has become a part of the public debate,
and in the next stage it shall be a central issue – in the elections. So
soon, we shall see big banners holding words such as ‘Transfer Now’. I
believe that the transfer explosion is anticipated by the end of this
decade.”
Moulidet
Movement’s Document:
Curators of ‘Israel’s’ Land Movement, founded by Rahbaam Zaifi, issued a
document of transfer by the end of March 2002. The document begins with
an illustration, about its nature and objectives as a group of
researches and adaptations, that seeks to eliminate ambiguousness,
ignorance and danger that foil discussion from taking place. It also
repeats Zaifi’s suggestion during the twelfth Knesset elections, “Only
transfer leads to peace.” The document then moves into discussing the
categories of transfer in order to achieve it:
1.
Voluntary Transfer:
Along with sticking to
the land of state through erecting settlements and containing the
immigrants who performed transfer and came from all over the world to
gather in the ‘promised land’, Arabs must be encouraged to leave the
West Bank through fiscal subsidies and other methods.
2.
Transfer through Fighting: The independence war has introduced geographical and
demographical changes when the Arab leaders led their peoples to the
painful Nakba. Arab leaders should know that there is no clean and
decent war, and who ever wages war against the ‘people of ‘Israel’, he
has to pay for it by transferring him from his house and place of
domicile. If they can’t live here with us in peace, then they shall
never live.
The
‘Israeli’ pre-emptive force shall not come back unless it is made clear
to our neighbors that terrorism shall lead them to lose their houses as
in 1948, when it was a disaster for them and independence for us.
3.
Transfer by Agreement:
This kind of transfer is made when two states reach an agreement between
each other that stipulates to move civilians from one place to another
for the sake of peace. Regrettably, in this way the Jews were eradicated
from Sinai and
Rafah
under a peace agreement between ‘Israel’ and Egypt, as well as in many
other places over the globe. If we want, we may endure that and install,
under international agreements, two states for two people on the two
banks of Jordan River.
Later, the document discusses the idea of an ‘alternative homeland’ and
talks about on the basis of the saying ‘this bank is ours as well as the
other’. But, regretfully – according to the document, in the east bank,
a Palestinian state still exists. Both banks are the historical land of
‘Israel’ and they are both ‘Palestine’ which was meant in Balfour
Declaration. The document justifies that due to the historic mistake
Churchill had made when he crowned the
Hashimite
Family on eastern Palestine and installed the Jordanian state out of
nothing at all, thus contradicting the real facts: over than 70% of
Jordan’s residents are Palestinians.
In the
light of believing that Jordan is Palestine, the document says, ‘It is
possible to deport the Arab residents of the West Bank and change them
into citizens in the Palestinian state whose capital is Amman provided
that the residents of the camps in the West Bank and other Arab
countries are naturalized. Arab residents in ‘Israel’ who prefer not to
be loyal to ‘Israel’ can vote for the Palestinian Parliament in Amman
without being eradicated from their homes. And if the Arabs waged war
against us, they would be deported to their state beyond Jordan.’
Nevertheless, Moulidet doesn’t want to wait for war to break out, and
suggests a Zionist invitation or initiative in the document, “Let be
ahead of things through transfer: we transfer the Arabs of the West Bank
and Gaza Strip into the Arab states. The solution of the Arab-‘Israeli’
conflict and peace cannot be achieved but through separating the two
people: Jews in the land of ‘Israel’; Arabs in the Arab states. This
shall be the next stage of population exchange that began with the
Jewish immigration from Islamic countries into ‘Israel’. Consequently,
the demographic threat shall disappear and the conditions to annex the
liberated area of the homeland shall be available.”
The
document later moves on raise questions which it also answers such as
whether the transfer is moral or immoral. It decides that it is moral
whether it concerned Jewish or those who are without a homeland, or
Palestinians who shall be the losers due to the results of war which
shall destroy their homes and make them refugees. The document further
adds that the whole world understands that there is no peace in
bi-ethnic countries and there is a desire for separation. The dilemma,
however, is that there is no single Arab state that approves of the idea
and accept to contain Palestinians. From this point, the document moves
on to the second question: how would transfer be conducted? It says that
‘Israel’ has to suggest transferring the Arabs of the Bank and the Strip
as a condition for peace in all future negotiations. “We can’t
relinquish these areas and we cannot have them while they are populated.
Moreover, ‘Israel’ can’t survive long without holding to the precious
military areas in the land of ‘Israel’ and the crossing points to
Jordan,” the document inserts.
As for
the question whether transfer is practical or not, the document replies,
“It’s feasible and viable like the Zionist project since its beginning
till present when it appeared that installing a Jewish entity in an Arab
and antagonistic surrounding, declaring that entity, fighting seven Arab
armies in 1948, creating agricultural communities in a semi-desert area,
making tanks and aircrafts in a country which doesn’t have heavy
industry and many other issues were chanceless. We have succeeded
because of faith.” The document also urged for taking immediate actions
form one side to encourage the Arab immigration from the bank’s
territory, closing academic institutions so that students go to Arab
countries to get tuition and decreasing the passage on the crossing
points.
In
addition, the document released by Moulidet Movement raised questions
about the stances of other Zionist parties and began with the Labor
party wondering if they really believe in coexistence. “Of course not.
The Labor Party has become desperate of coexisting.” It then moves to
the Lekud and questions whether they support transfer. The documents
also answers, “Yes, they do. They are in favor of transfer, but they
refrain from declaring so because they are afraid to lose the Arab votes
in their struggle for power.”
The
document then moves ahead and clarifies the difference between Moulidet
and Kakh about transfer. “The thoughts of the two parties are
incomparable. Unlike Moulidet, Kakh Kahanna Movement desires to use
force in transferring the Arabs and not negotiations. Transfer is a
brutal, non-Jewish and nonpolitical action.”
As for
the destiny of the Arabs in ‘Israel’, the document makes it clear that
those who believe in the existence of a Jewish state and comply with the
obligations derived from this belief shall enjoy all the rights.
However, those who oppose the existence of the state of ‘Israel’ shall
leave the country ‘because it is ours’.
Top
12- Transfer Logistics:
It is a
document that includes detailed plans concerning the methods to be used
in confronting the demographic threat for the Zionist entity by using
compulsory expulsion against all Palestinians from the region extending
from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean with 3 to 5 five years. This
document was issued by Jamla group, which was founded by Zionist
ex-officers and settlers. The group introduces itself as ‘the front line
in the battle for the land of (Israel)’, and it organizes and
participates in demonstrations, publishes articles, labels and
newsletters for that cause, and in general, most of its activities are
coordinated. Some other key organizations in the national camp also
partake in the said movement. The 9000-word document was written by
Boris Shostev on 03.07.2002 and was prefaced as follows:
“Collective ethnic cleansing against all Palestinians is the only
resolution for the Palestinian-‘Israeli’ conflict. The bible has
supported this solution.” The document called on the Zionist entity to
clearly illustrate to the international community that if no decision is
taken and a state was installed for the Arab Palestinians in a suitable
site within 3 to 5 years, the entity shall start transferring the Arabs
into Jordan and Sinai. Not only does the document regard the logistics
of transfer into Jordan and Sinai as the only designated places, but it
also raises two other alternatives that the geographical and political
realties provide them today: Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Talking about these
two options is inevitably related to the imminent US war against Iraq.
Suggesting Iraq for this role ways back to 1930, according to the
document, and if the US is currently studying the process of toppling
Saddam Hussein, the idea of relocating the Arab Palestinians into Iraq
must be taken seriously and vigilantly. After changing the regime, the
document continues, Iraq will be divided into many territories that
enjoy self-governance (for Kurds and Arab Palestinians for example). The
document also considers that as the best available strategy. Why is
that? The document answers that question by referring to the logistics
of transfer, and above all, eliminating, forever, the Iraqi trials to
gain domination in the Arab world. In the second place, it shall
eliminate the obligation to create a Kurd state from the international
agenda. Should the Arab Palestinians need two states, it is clear that
the Kurds deserve at least one. Eventually, it shall solve the Arab
Palestinians’ issue by giving them a second state, sufficiently distinct
from ‘Israel’.
On the
other hand, transferring Palestinians into Saudi Arabia is to be made
according to the Zionist-American suggestion (Bertram Cohen), which is
called Baroch plan. This suggestion is said to inflict numerous
benefits. Among the most useful is that the Palestinians could be
settled next to the Islamic holy shrines in Mecca and Medina. Living
there, as a result, will certainly be better than running after a
capital in Jerusalem which is merely a political desire and which will
never be approved of by ‘Israel’ if the division is to be implemented.
Since the Saudis have lately approved of the peace plans in the Middle
East, it wouldn’t be more honorable if the Saudis shared their land with
their Palestinian brothers. This could be a proof from the Saudis about
their sincerity with respect to their peace invitation. The document
further adds that if the Saudis are really concerned over peace, then
their support to this option will surely bring peace to the region
because it shall eliminate the main source of occupation (between the
Arabs and Jews). The document also confirms that in both directions of
the matter the area of the lands dedicated for the Palestinians shall be
four or five times bigger than the area of the West Bank and the Gaza
Strip which is about 2268 square miles. The second most important point
in confirming these two options is that the refugees dilemma shall be
immediately resolved and they would be able to move to their new country
associated with the international community’s aid, headed by ‘Israel’.
The
document also discusses the manner of executing transfer. The method to
be used is determined to be swift military operation. It suggests
starting with a relocation of a little group of 1000 persons within 48
hours. The evacuated area must be entirely leveled and devastated. In
case any Palestinian showed any resistance, the document suggests
committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. “Any attempts from
the Arab Palestinians part to perform any resistance activity must be
immediately snuffed out by using the most brutal means.” In order to
achieve the same objectives, the document proposes adopting the
suggestion of the Liberal American Professor at Harvard University, Alan
Dershowitz after introducing few modifications. The proposal suggests
the following:
“‘Israel’ warns that it shall retaliate by destroying and leveling an
Arab village or settlement that will be chosen by computer from a
prepared list. The essence of the idea is to make the Arabs directly
responsible for their fate and to make it clear that the martyrdom
attacks shall not only be refused, but be severely punished for. At that
time, Arabs, in addition to the international community, will know what
would happen if the Jews were attacked. Using the computer to choose the
site to destroy shall equalize between Arabs and Jews. As a matter of
fact, Jews don’t know the place where the fighters shall attack, and the
Arabs shall not know which of their villages would be leveled in
retaliation.” According to the document, the number of the Arabs who
desire to leave the land of ‘Israel’ shall increase. Indisputably, such
terrifying style of genocide and ethnic cleansing had been previously
planned and practiced by the Nazism in World War II. The author of the
‘Transfer Logistics’ doesn’t forget to clarify the reasons that make the
transfer of Palestinians from the so called ‘land of (Israel)’ an
obligation and a must. He defines the importance in three reasons or
justifications which are the same as the objectives of transfer:
1. Finding
a material area between ‘Israel’ and the Arab Palestinians which shall
completely eradicate any ability (as well as any desire on the long run)
to execute attacks against Jews.
2. This
abolishes the demographical threat which the Jewish state shall
encounter.
3.
It shall let ‘Israel’ achieve a greater progress under
the most suitable circumstances for the Jewish people to live alone.
As the
document draws the details of the transfer and specifies its locations,
it recognizes the presence of dilemmas and complications that tackle
these plans. Hence, it calls for approaching them at the same time and
make them include the following factors and elements:
a. A
media campaign on the international level
b.
An illustrative media campaign dedicated to the
‘Israelis’
c. A
media campaign among the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that
encourages them to accept naturalization.
d. A
media campaign among the Arab-‘Israelis’
e. Transfer
procedures from ‘Israel’ in the West Bank and Gaza Strip
Concerning the media campaign on the international level, the document
gives two reasons for performing it:
1.
To make the international community at least take into
consideration the idea of transfer and informing the same of the
benefits of the solution. Although the chances of acquiring
international support are very low, the whole idea of transfer is equal
to nothing if it is not taken out into light.
2.
‘Israel’ doesn’t really need to convince the entire
globe, but needs a little support from its allies such as the USA, and
even with such limited support, executing transfer shall be easier than
ever.
The purpose of the international campaign shall be to tell the world
that it would be more viable to create the new Palestinian state over
the lands of another existing Arab state. And that this state shall have
the chance to grow more and better than if it were to be inserted in the
West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 2268 miles of nonadjacent lands. In the
same time, the danger on the international peace will remarkably
decrease.
It also aims at changing
the direction of debate from the very weak idea of ‘the right to the
land’ to a worthiest one which is ‘the right to natural existence and
dwindling the danger of waging a vast war’.
According to the
document, the most important raison d'être is that transfer will save a
countless number of Jews and Arabs, provide a greater territorial
stability and grant Arab Palestinians a chance in a better future
exceeding what they would have ever dreamt of had a state been erected
in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The document also implies that the
divided Arab reality gives the best means to persuade the whole world to
support ‘Israel’. It is logical due to the history of the Arab world to
take a plot of land from any Arab state and give it to the Palestinians
to form their state over. To give more importance to this idea, ‘Israel’
shall need to take many practical procedures.
The
document suggests that the first procedure be the immediate attachment
of all the lands in the Bank and the Strip since it shall put ‘Israel’
is similar situation to Iraq and Saudi Arabia, disregarding any legal
justifications. According to ‘Israel’s’ own reading of the international
law, these lands are not occupied due to the following reasons set up by
the document:
1.
These lands had never been under any kind of Palestinian
control or sovereignty before Oslo Accords.
2.
‘Israel’ had gained these lands in a defensive war from
an enemy whose control was never internationally recognized.
3.
The status of these lands which are ‘disputed over’ and
not ‘occupied’.
As for
the media campaign among the Jewish ‘Israelis’, the document justifies
that if the Jews were in the past convinced with necessity to do so,
transferring Arabs would have been done earlier and the relations
between Arabs and ‘Israel’ would have been notably better. The campaign
calls on focusing the possibility of implementing transfer through
proofing it. For this purpose, the document underlines the moral
justification of transfer through portraying it as the only solution
available to preserve lives and since it makes the regular future
possible for plenty of people who had never had a hope before. So,
transfer is considered the most decent alternative. The document sees
that it is time to get the upside-down issue back on feet and end the
taboos imposed thereby.
What’s
more, transfer will not only end the tension in the Middle East provided
that the international community is helping in transferring the Arabs
into another place, but will also enhance the defensive ability of the
Jewish state decisively and grant it more security as well as military
and strategic depth. It shall also reactivate the immigration of Jews
into ‘Israel’ and eliminate the dilemma of refugees. This campaign
amongst the ‘Israelis’ shall tighten up the religious link bonds between
the Jews and their land. This shall be the role of Avi Itam.
It is
predicted that no remarkable effort is needed among the Jews and
‘Israelis’ since it has become their sole alternative. According to an
annual poll for the purposes of national security conducted by Javi
Center for Strategic Surveys at the University of Tel Aviv by the end of
February 2002 and supervised by Professor Asherrian, 46% of the Jews
preferred transferring the Palestinians from the Bank and the Strip and
36% preferred deporting the Arabs of 1948 from ‘Israel’. Upon bringing
up this topic indirectly, 60% answered that they prefer to encourage the
Arabs in ‘Israel’ to leave the country. Analyzing the results of the
said survey, Arieh Daian wrote in Ha’aretz (17.03.2002) quoting Yuli
Olstein, the Minister representing ‘Israel Baalia’ party,
“Unfortunately, the results of the poll reflect the fact I see almost
everyday. Some support transfer explicitly and evidently whereas some
others use tricky and cunning words. However, all of us are agreed that
we have to take a certain procedure.”
As for
the campaign among the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, it is a
hard mission even for a powerful army. Therefore, it must be made
voluntarily. This is the only solution. “Arabs must reach a conviction
that they have no future in west ‘Israel’. Thus, ‘Israel’ has to work on
making the Palestinian understand that transfer serves their benefit.
All ‘Israeli’ policies must be devised to make the Arabs prefer leaving.
The document continues with a poll made at Bir Zeit University on 7 & 8
September 2001. The results indicated that in case chances were
available, 21.9% of the Arabs would immigrate, i.e. more than 600000
Arabs are ready to abandon the Bank and Strip and go after better
chances. As a result, the document clarifies that if ‘Israel’ makes it
clear that it will implement the transfer option, and if it is going to
give suitable incentives to leave, the number will dramatically
increase. What makes things easier is that more than 40% of the Arabs of
1948 and 50% of the Arabs in the Bank and the Strip and more than half
of the refugees are below 16 years old. The author concludes that less
than half of the Palestinians were born before 1967 and a far lesser
number were born before 1948, so their attachment to a land that most of
them had never laid an eye on is derived from their desire in a better
life to live now. The author indicated that most of the Palestinians
would seize the chance whenever it is given to them to leave the
refugees camps to start a better life. Another important reason that
makes the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip attached to their land
is that because most of them survive from working in ‘Israel’. The
document quotes Ezekiel Ben-Noun (21.03.2002 – article in Marocishon),
“Currently, and despite the restrictions on entering ‘Israel’, great
numbers of the Arabs of Gaza and the Bank are still working there.
(Israelis) employ 150000 workers of the Arabs of 1967 daily.” According
to Terry Larson, the Coordinator of the United Nations, every single
Arab provide for 10 Arab individuals, so the total of the population
provided for by the ‘Israeli’ companies is 1.5 million people of the
Arabs of 1967 or half their number. The document proves its previous
conclusions by quoting Ben-Noun once again, “When Israel reduced the
number of labor permits usually issued to the Arab workers, 100000 Arabs
left the territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority and
immigrated to foreign countries.” “Moreover, let’s not forget that the
number of Arabs who would like to immigrate is about 600000,” the
document adds.
Additionally, ‘Transfer Logistics’ gives a great importance to the
campaign among the Arab-‘Israelis’ because making them leave will be
more complicated. Despite this fact, it should be made since they alone
form a demographical threat to the Jewish state, and ‘Israel’ simply has
no choice other than expelling them. The document suggests that the
following constraints are imposed on the Arabs of 1948 to make them
leave:
1.
Enact a law that prevent non-Jewish from participating in
the ‘Israeli’ political life.
2.
Draft a law that encourages relocating the
Arab-‘Israelis’ outside ‘Israel’ and providing them with a monetary
reconsideration in return.
3.
Enact a law that imposes a kind of mandatory civil
service on Jews and Arabs. Arabs shall have to choose between serving
the Jewish state or leave the same.
4.
Should
the Arab-‘Israelis’ opt to remain in ‘Israel’, they can be given the
right to convert into Judaism.
The
last suggestion is supported by supplying similar events that took place
in the Jewish history. In 120 BC Adomians were given the chance to opt
between leaving and converting into Judaism by Jonathan Herkavos. More
than one million remained and converted. One hundred years later,
Youssifus wrote that their descendants were the most enthusiasts in
defending the Jewish state in its struggle against Rome.
Although the document concentrates on the campaigns, it doesn’t
exaggerate on depending on them, but calls for ‘Israel’ to
simultaneously perform certain actions to prove the authenticity and
seriousness of its intentions. The first step towards the same objective
is to expel Arafat and attach the West Bank and Gaza. It also recommends
that the proposal of Professor Paul Edeliberg, which is to sell the
lands in the Bank and the Strip to any of the Jews all over the world
who want to move into ‘Israel’ at very cheap prices, be adopted.
Improving the Jewish life in Gaza and the West Bank must become a
priority for the policy of ‘Israel’ as well as building highways, an
airport and a harbor there. An additional view is to adopt Professor
Alan Dershowitz’s suggestion as for retaliating against potential
attacks. The document further demands a timetable for the transfer which
should not take more than 5 to 8 years.
‘Israel’ must revive the talks with Jordan and Egypt about relocating
the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in case there. Should this
suggestion not succeed, they must be relocated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
The document leaves the conclusion for life to put accordingly. But it
continues with confirming that the issues that seem impossible to
realize at the being time, or could be applied in an argumentative
atmosphere, shall be as easy and 1, 2, 3 when time comes. Most
importantly among everything else is to have a clear goal which is to
deport Palestinians collectively, which is an absolutely divine goal
which should never be given up. Hence, the last sentence in the document
is adopted from ‘The Holy Rise’, a book by Rabbi Shlomo Kar Libach, “The
land of ‘Israel’ is the sleeping isle of the God, where He coexists with
the Jews, his favored people, and where there is no place for others who
have nothing to do with God and the Jewish People.”
Top
13- Other Perspectives about Transfer:
What is
going on within the occupied territories has undoubtedly indicated the
fact that the Zionist entity has never stopped at shifting the concept
of transfer into plans, but started implementing them on real grounds
awaiting the suitable time. In this scope, Mohamad Hassanin Haykal says,
“No one has sufficiently noticed Sharon’s first instructions; he ordered
the crossroads be cleaned from stones, by all means possible, including
bulldozers, so that children wouldn’t find any to use; i.e., he began
with the disarming process.” Sharon also determines the option after
getting rid of the Palestinian authority: he would try to implement the
‘Jordanian resolution’ by attaching the unwanted remains to Jordan. This
new state may call itself whatever it may choose: Jordan, Palestine,
etc…Zaif Chiv reported that Jordan members asked ‘Israel’ before Taba
meetings in December 2001 not to surrender West Jordan to the
Palestinians since it will create borders between Jordan and the
promised Palestinian state. But Jordan at the same time doesn’t wish to
substitute for not giving the same area to the Palestinians. Haykal
continues, “There was a suggestion to keep the destiny of the region
suspended for at least twelve years. This request, disregarding the
persons who made it, is highly indicative that there are certain persons
who think of Jordan as a kind of solution. What is being written for the
future of the orient for the next century was discussed in London and
Washington in the last weeks of King Hussein’s life in January 1998 when
he spent over two weeks between London and Washington. The scenario
fulfilled the ambitions of the King in inheriting the throne of Iraq.
Though he was enthusiastic to the idea, he was suspicious of many
surrounding leaders. He wanted to know exactly what Jordan can
anticipate by the end of this scenario and whether he could guarantee
the throne for one of his sons. Meanwhile, ‘Israel’ was ready to give a
green light for this idea since it enables it from deporting thousands
of Palestinians into north Iraq.”
On the
basis of the available data, the said scenario was prepared in 1996 by
Richard Pearle, assistant to the American Secretary of Defense, and the
third figure in the Pentagon, in addition to a small group of
researchers who asked for helping Netanyahu in his first steps as a
Prime Minister. They prepared a plan to retrieve Iraq into the Hashimite
Family Regime using the assistance of ‘Israel’. As the USA started the
drums of war against Iraq, this scenario was brought into light. It
could be summarized in few words: Palestine is ‘Israel’; Jordan is
Palestine; Iraq is the Hashimite Government. This could be deduced from
the statement of the Secretary of Defense, Donald Ramsfeld, when he said
about the Israeli occupation to the West Bank and Gaza Strip ‘it’s not
an occupation’. The ‘Israeli’ author Alex Manishman indicated that the
American-Zionist view is to merge Iraq and Jordan in one Hashimite
Kingdom. He points out the participation of the Ex-Crown Prince of
Jordan (Prince Hassan) in the Iraqi opposition convention in London in
the middle of July 2002 which included transferring Palestinians into
Jordan. However, the issue can’t be as an exact merger, but as forming a
Hashimite administration to the tribal, sect and ethnic mosaic that the
USA and ‘Israel’ intend to produce in the Arab orient. Ryan Krooker’s
report, assistant to the Secretary of State for the Near East Affairs,
shed some light on the issue. He calls for the US administration to wage
a military action against Iraq in order to impose solutions for the
Palestinian and Iraqi issues by toppling Saddam Hussein and naturalizing
the Palestinian refugees in Kurds area in north Iraq, thus rocking the
demographical combination of Iraq and to use the same in fueling ethnic
conflicts between the different ethnicities (Arab-Kurdish, Ashourian-Turkish).
Although relocation serves Turkey and Iran since it would eliminate the
possibility of installing a Kurd state in the future, it shall worry
Tehran as it increases the Arabic Sunnite population next on its
northern borders as much as it would worry Ankara if this settlement
shall be focused in Karkouk, the oil city of north Iraq, and as it would
foil the Turkish attempts of creating a Turkish entity in Mousel and
Karkouk. Despite all of this, the choice of Kurdestan is still viable
according to Krooker and his assistants. What arises sorrow is to adopt
the American-Zionist scenario and market it as a solution for the
Palestinian issue by some prominent Iraqi opposition figures outside
Iraq which is indicative that this scenario had been discussed between
the Americanized Iraqi opposition and the American leadership. It is
worth mentioning that the invitation of Wafic Al Sameraai to make Iraq
the ‘alternative homeland’ seems to provide a radical solution for the
dilemma of the Palestinian refugees on the basis of settling. Yes, Iraq
is the qualified country to perform this historic mission for main three
reasons:
- Iraq’s
area is twice as Great Britain’s and the population in the former is
only one third of the population of the former. Population density in
Britain is 240 persons/km2 whereas it is 50 persons/km2
in Iraq. One thousand years ago, the population in Iraq was between 30
to 40 millions capita and it is able to contain 60 million capita when
resources are available.
- During
70s and 80s, Iraq imported 4 million workers and the state allowed
transferring 2000 dollars annually according to the local exchange rate,
that is, 8 billion dollars per year. This sum could have been invested
in Iraq if had suitable population density.
- After
removing the sanctions, Iraq will be a gigantic worksite and enormous
sums of money will be available since it possesses the second oil
reserve in the world and shall need over 4 million workers.
-
There
are no differences in culture, traditions and customs between the Iraqi
and the Palestinian societies. Therefore, coexistence would be easy
between the two.
- In
conclusion, Iraq is capable of containing millions of Palestinians who
live in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, etc…in the presence of an international
subsidies program. Iraq shall also be liable to a part of the costs
since it will benefit from such a step.
“It may
not be possible to start immediately with settling Palestinians, but
whether the regime remained the same or not, Iraq shall be regarded as a
homeland for the Palestinian Diaspora in 2 to 3 years from now,” the
article concludes.
In
addition to the above, there is a statement issued by 97 ‘Israeli’
academics which criticizes the ‘Israeli’ policy and points out the
‘Israeli’ intention to commit genocide and an ethnic cleansing against
the Palestinian people. The following is an excerpt taken from the
statement, “… We are too concerned before all the indications that
foretell ‘Israel’s’ intention to exploit the war ciaos (against Iraq) to
commit new murders against the Palestinian people which would reach
genocide level. The government coalition includes figures who promote
for the transfer of the Palestinian people as a resolution of the so
called ‘demographic threat’. Most of the time, quotes of politicians are
used in media as once happened between Michael Klienz and Benny Ylon on
September 19, 2002 and in a recent interview with Chief of Staff Moshe
Delon in Ha’aretz when he described Palestinians as a ‘cancerous
phenomenon’ and the operations in the occupied territories as the
‘chemical therapy’ adding that we needed a more radical therapy. Sharon
has also supported this real evaluation. The increase of racist demagogy
against the ‘Israeli’-Palestinians might be an indication to the crimes
that are intended to be committed.”
Shlomo
Ben-Ziri, the Minister of Labor and Social Welfare in Sharon’s
government, in parallel, revived the demographic council for the
purposes of keeping the Jewish features of ‘Israel’. His mission was the
weirdest and most racist. He was to draw a plan that raises the
‘Israeli’ Jewish births and reduce non-Jewish ones. ‘Israel’ first
founded this council in the war of 1967 and it planned for attaining the
Jewish majority in Jerusalem and in the villages within the green line,
especially in Galilee and the triangle. The policy of this council is
based on the necessity of determining the rate of the Arabs below 24% of
the total rate of the residents.
Nonetheless, and as the Zionist plan is revealed, the Palestinian
authority, while dealing with the besieged in the Church of the Cradle
during the pre-emptive fence operation, legitimized transfer when it
accepted the deportation of 13 persons among the besieged overseas. Many
Palestinian figures pointed out this issue. Hussein El Sheikh Amin,
Secretary of Fattah Reference in the West Bank said, “We, as Fattah
movement, are startled and amazed before the authority’s actions: How
would it legitimize transfer and deportation of citizens?” He wondered,
“What would stop Sharon’s government from exiling a bigger number of our
people under the alibi of being involved in the resistance?” He added,
“It is impossible after this long strive in order to achieve the return
of the Palestinian people that we now legitimize deportation.”
Abdul
Aziz El Rantisy, one of Hamas leaders, says, “This track of transfer is
an ‘Israeli’ fixed principle. Transfer was closed by the deportees of
Marj El Zuhur in 1992 where as the authority has opened it in this
agreement.”
After a
period of closing the eyes to the issue, many voices that indicate the
threat of transfer are now heard in the Arab world. Walid Janbolad,
President of the Progressive Social Party, expressed his concern of a
serious transfer of Palestinians into Lebanon, Jordan or Syria while
meeting with the French former Prime Minister.
Marwan
Al Maashar, Jordanian Minister of Foreign Affairs, warned from
transferring Palestinians from the West Bank into Jordan although he
said that his country had received solid confirmations that ‘Israel’
would not compulsory transfer Palestinians into Jordan, but the latter
is very suspicious because no public statement which affirms the same
had been issued.
The
Arab League Secretary General also warned from the threat of transfer in
an official document submitted to the Arab Initiative Committee during
its meeting at Beirut. He pointed out a Zionist plan is underway to
transfer the highest number possible of Palestinians and receiving five
million Jews.
In
front of this immediate danger (since its roll is moving rapidly) the
slogan of the Arabs of 1948 during the ‘Day of the Land’ of 2002 was:
Confronting Transfer and Clinging to Our Homeland Whatever the Price
Might Be.
Top |
