Emigration to Mandate Palestine from the Hauran

A report on the present conditions in the Hauran was published in the Journal of The Royal Central Asian Society in 1936.

One of the topics was the emigration of the population in the region, the Southern Golan, into Mandate Palestine.

An excerpt:

...during the spring and summer of 1934 some twenty-five to thirty thousand people left Hauran, and that 96 per cent, of them emigrated to Palestine. Mass emigration started in April from these drought-stricken regions when it became clear that all hope of a harvest had to be abandoned, and soon spread to other districts. In August-September, when the available food supply had been almost exhausted, emigration reached its height. The largest number of emigrants came from the Der'a and Bosra-Eskisham districts, where some villages were almost completely deserted.

Approximately 10 per cent of the emigrants turned to the Syrian cities, Damascus and Beirut. The present grave economic crisis in Syria and the labour glut, due to the constant influx of fellaheen from the rural districts to the towns, have deterred the Haurani from wandering to the interior of the country. On the other hand, reports of conditions in Palestine, the plentiful employment, the higher wages, and the general prosperity, proved irresistibly attractive, and the first immigrants were soon followed by those who had previously tried their luck in the various cities of Syria. Even in normal times there was a continual stream of emigration from Hauran, and in periods of drought, such as has occurred during the last two years, the exodus assumed mass proportions. 

Native Hauranis were familiar figures in the large towns of Syria and of Palestine in normal times as well, although their numbers never reached the present total. The existing situation must not, therefore, be regarded only as a result of the drought. The underlying causes go much deeper, and the problem of emigration from Hauran is neither new nor merely temporary.

At the beginning of October a number of Hauranis began to return from Palestine to their homes. Most went voluntarily, but there were also deportees. At the end of October it was estimated that about 30 per cent, had returned to Hauran.  Under pressure of Jewish public opinion and the growing opposition of the Arabs themselves to Hauran immigration, which had begun to affect the local wage level adversely, the Government of Palestine began to make sporadic arrests of Hauranis, and some were deported. 

But the Hauranis themselves told the writer that only a small number of the immigrants were sent out of the country, and that the majority of the deportees returned either immediately or a little later.  

There were 14 more years left too the existence of the Mandate regime. What were the demographics of Arabs from outside Mandate Palestine who came to the country and stayed?  And how many fled during 1947-1948 and became "refugees"?

^

Who is a "Refugee from Palestine"?

Please note the uniqueness of the time period that allows for one to be termed a refugee from Palestine:

Palestine refugees are defined as “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict.”  

Only two years of residency.

If we recall that during World War II there was a large influx of Arab workers from neighboring countries required for the British economy based on troops and related areas, from clothing, to camps construction, to food, etc. as well as the oil-refineries near Haifa and more,* then we can suspect that many Arabs who had no specific connection to "Palestine", as they were Syrians, Egyptians, Lebanese and TransJordanians and others, became, poof!, "refugees from Palestine".

And if one was a doctor, dentist or engineer, could it be said that the person "lost the means of his livelihood"?

One more point: "Palestine refugees", not "Palestinian refugees".

Jews were also "Palestine refugees".

____________________

*

The Second World War begin in 1939. The Palestinian economy was safe from recession and stimulated to play a major role in the British Middle Eastern military effort. Palestine was developed as a large British base and its people were also moblised to reduce dependence on outside sources of supply and to enhance Palestine’ s industrial base so that it could facilitate British military needs and also provide a whole array of consumer and other goods for a regional market. This was a major encouragement for both the Arab and Jewish sectors of the economy. There was a considerable enhancement in income and a speedy acceleration in the process of social changes....In the industrial sector, the major expansion took place with an enormous increase in capacity and output required to meet demand in three large markets: The British military, Palestine itself and the rest of the Middle East, including Turkey. Unfortunately, the government was unable to retain precise figures to prove this process, but according to one estimate, output in Jewish-owned factories increased by 200 percent between 1939 and 1942 and that in Arab-owned enterprises by 77 percent... between 1939 and 1945, average industrial earnings were estimated to have grown by 200 percent for Arabs and 258 percent for Jews during the same period. Unskilled construction workers increased by 405 percent and 329 percent respectively. Conditions in the rural areas was somewhat better. Prices of locally grown agricultural products were said to have increased seven fold during the war and agricultural wages by the same amount by mid1943. In these circumstances it was not surprising to find that the official government figures indicated that total agricultural income quadrupled between 1939 and 1944/5 (in money terms). It provided the Arab peasant with ‘a large measures of prosperity’ and leading to a dramatic decline in the need to borrow essential items from money lenders in many districts...perhaps the most important developments in the period were the huge mobilization of labor. It took many hundreds of thousands away from their villages on either a daily or a more permanent basis and the stimulus was given to Arab industry. According to Taqqu’s estimate, about one-third of the male Arab work force was employed in wage labor by 1945, most of them by the government and military but with some 13,000 in some aspect of manufacturing.

Source

^

Arabs as "Settlers"

From a House of Commons speech delivered by Earl Jowitt, a Labour politician who served as Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain on December 1. 1954:

...I visited the old Jerusalem and the Holy Places...I was deeply moved—I have never been more moved in my life, and this is what leads me to speak of it to-day—with what I saw in regard to the refugees. I saw them in old Jerusalem and I saw them in Jericho. I saw them, after seven years, still living in their inadequate tents. I am going to make an appeal from the heart to your Lordships' House, to this country and to the United Nations to try to do something to tackle and solve this problem. For seven years this has been going on. Some of the Jews will say, "The Arabs left voluntarily." I do not think that is an adequate answer. At Haifa and in the area around 41 there are large numbers of Arabs still living under Jewish rule. I went to the cadi's court and saw the cadi. He said he had 50,000 Arabs there still patronising his court. I spoke to him privately, and he told me that he had no sort of complaint to make about what was being done for them. It is obvious that they are happy and contented living under the Jews. He added: "The one thing we want is that there shall be peace, like we have here, throughout the Holy Land."

In the course of the war, for which the Arabs must bear a great deal of responsibility, there were undoubtedly incidents...one of the features of war that incidents do take place. It was the fear that incidents might happen that induced a large number of these Arabs to leave the country. I am bound to say (I feel it should be said) that I found amongst the Arabs intense bitterness. I found, I regret to say, a distrust of this country and of her promises. 

...With regard to the work of U.N.R.R.A. (and this should be said, because that work is due shortly to come to an end), I am afraid I was not impressed with what has been done, although many admirable people have devoted themselves to that work. I thought I found—these are only impressions—a good deal of over-lapping organisation. There had been in the past some peculation, almost inevitably, I suppose. In order to try and prevent peculation, they now insist on the filling of forms to an extent and complexity which I have rarely seen, with the result that the charitably disposed people who are trying to administer the funds given to them by U.N.R.R.A. are beset by these forms, and have to engage extra staff to fill them up, with little advantage to anyone. I hope that what I am about to say will not be used in evidence against me hereafter, but I am bound to admit that the individual effort which I saw being made by some individuals was, to my mind, far more effective than the work which U.N.R.R.A. were doing.

...The weakness of the U.N.R.R.A. position is that they have concentrated on maintaining these people and not on settling them. I can well understand the reason why—indeed, I saw and heard it: the reason is that there are some Arab politicians who are not anxious that this matter should be settled. When I talked about trying to resettle some of the people of these villages...and trying to get them to the fertile lands in the interior, the Arabs said, "No, we regard them as our first line."

I want to say this to your Lordship quite definitely. You cannot resettle these people in Israel. Do let us be quite clear about that. You cannot do it, because in Israel, where they used to be, new settlers have come; and you would not solve this problem at all by trying to resettle them there. You would merely have to remove the existing settlers, and you would have the same problem all over again. As I have said, though you put them on the same land you would find, generally speaking, that that land is very different from what it was; and, moreover, is now full of new houses. I think the Arabs realise this. What they said to me was that they ought to be given the chance to go back. I said, "Supposing they were given the chance to go back, would they go?"; and they answered, "No." So we have this situation...There is there a population of something of the order of 800,000 to 900,000 refugees, because a large number of children are born every year. They are without hope; they are without prospects, and they are carrying on a miserable existence on an inadequate supply of food. It is a festering sore. That situation cannot do anything to improve the character of the people who are receiving food but are denied any chance of doing any work or any hope of work in the future. They look back on the past and long to go back to their own lands which, in their imagination, have become now far greater and more wonderful than they ever were.

My Lords, I am quite satisfied that we cannot afford to allow this state of affairs to go on, and I beg you to end this situation. Whether or not they will settle in Jordan—and I did not see any of Jordan, except in the course of my trip from Jerusalem to Jericho and down to Jordan and the Dead Sea; I did not go further north—I cannot bring myself to think that, if they showed the same energy and initiative and had the same capital resources as the Jews, it would not be possible to settle them on the east of Jordan. If I am wrong on that, there can be no question whatever that they could be settled in Syria. I beg the Government to use their influence. I realise that it is not a matter for this country alone, but I beg the Government to use their influence to try to get something done about this matter. All your Lordships will agree that to have something like 800,000 or 900.000 people in this condition is a most serious situation for the peace and well-being of the world. I am not making the smallest criticism of the Government—I want them to understand that. All I am asking is for help in dealing with a problem which strikes me as being the most urgent problem with which I have ever come face to face in my life.

^

The 1947 Refugees - Jewish

The issue of refugees, of displaced persons due to military activity, is a constant theme in the Israel-Arab conflict.

Here's a newspaper report and the outlined-in-red section informs us that by December 4th (the issue date is December 5), over 800 Jews, yes, Jews, had been forced to flee the battle zone * of southern Tel Aviv and find alternate housing in synagogues and other temporary locations including an open field:

That was from Davar.

The accompanying photograph:

*

and if someone suggests that 'battle zone' means, well, it's the Jews' fault, let me remind you: the Arabs started an aggressive war against the Jewish community in Mandate Palestine in opposition to the UN recommendation of November 29, 1947.  The fault lies with the Arab side that was violent from the outset.


i.e.:-

On December 15th, 1949 the Michigan Arab newspaper As Sabah (literally the Morning Tribune) published an editorial on the question of the Palestine Arab refugees:


“What is the crime of the refugees in the eyes of the lords of Arabia who stand by and watch the misery of the refugees, and who suck the blood of the poor and needy-without shame before God and the world? Yes the poor refugees committed the crime of listening to those deceivers, they believed the liars, and went to the extreme foolishness of leaving their homes, counting on their deceitful leaders to bring them back! And because of what is happening to the Palestine refugees, Arab public opinion is changing little by little to support the Jews in Israel where not a single Arab dies from starvation and cold! And if there should be another war, it should be against the Arab leaders, the princes and kings who brought this catastrophe upon the poor people of Palestine.”

The editorial’s analysis regarding Arab public opinion favoring Israel was incorrect, to say the least. But the claim that Palestinians fled their homes in response to Arab leaders has been controversial since the events occurred. The Palestinians of Michigan in 1949 thought this was the case.

^

Finally, I Can Quote Roger Cohen Happily (Almost)

Here:-

the rapid White House-to-wipe-out course of Middle Eastern diplomacy

He continues, though, and asserts:

Palestine can’t get born if the land for it keeps eroding

Wait! Isn't that how Israel got born?

First, the 1919 borders were truncated.

The in 1922, we lost TransJordan.

In 1937, there was this partition plan. Peel.

In 1938, another partition plan. Woodhead. (and here and here).  And another.

In 1944, Churchill was mulling another.

And in 1947, the UN recommended another.

None of which the Arabs accepted.

Now, some Cohen punditry:-

1.  "Netanyahu’s push for up-front Palestinian recognition of Israel as a “Jewish state” is a non-starter. The Palestine Liberation Organization has recognized Israel; it’s not going to get into the state’s nature. In reality the “Jewish state” opening gambit is an attempt to settle the Palestinian refugee issue ahead of discussion of other final-status questions like borders. That can’t work."

Cohen, but that's the whole point.  If Israel doesn't condition that, there's no Israel.  That's a Pal. gambit to eradicate Israel demographically.

2.  "If there is enough momentum by the second half of next year to suggest Palestinian statehood is a train leaving the station, a majority of Palestinians in Gaza will board it. Then peace becomes a political dilemma for Hamas."

That, Mr. Cohen, is wrong. Gaza is Iranian, basically.  They will not go along.

3.  "There will be no Palestinian state without East Jerusalem as its capital."

To echo Abbas, they can call what they want, but they ain't getting any Jerusalem.

- - -

And I put up a version at Green-Lined at the JPost:

"Return" Right? Wrong

Eli Hertz sheds some light on UN Resolution 194 and notes that it was

Paragraph 11, which alone addressed the issue of refugees and compensation for those whose property was lost or damaged. Contrary to Arab claims, it did not guarantee a Right of Return and certainly did not guarantee an unconditional Right of Return - that is the right of Palestinian Arab refugees to return to Israel. Nor did it specifically mention Arab refugees, thereby indicating that the resolution was aimed at all refugees, both Jewish and Arab. Instead, Resolution 194 recommended that refugees be allowed to return to their homeland if they met two important conditions:

1. That they be willing to live in peace with their neighbors

2. That the return takes place "at the earliest practicable date"

The resolution also recommended that for those who did not wish to return, "Compensation should be paid for the property ... and for loss of or damage to property" by the "governments or authorities responsible."

Although Arab leaders point to Resolution 194 as proof that Arab refugees have a right to return or be compensated, Israel is not even mentioned in the resolution. The fact that plural wording also is used - "governments or authorities" - suggests that, contrary to Arab claims, the burden of compensation does not fall solely upon one side of the conflict. Because seven Arab armies invaded Israel, Israel was not responsible for creating the refugee problem. When hundreds of thousands of Arab Jews, under threat of death, attack and other forms of persecution, were forced to flee Arab communities, the State of Israel absorbed the overwhelming majority of them into the then-fledgling nation.

One point I wish to add.

The Arabs get preferential treatment. Ever heard of UNHCR?
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

This is what it does:

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was established on December 14, 1950 by the United Nations General Assembly. The agency is mandated to lead and co-ordinate international action to protect refugees and resolve refugee problems worldwide. Its primary purpose is to safeguard the rights and well-being of refugees. It strives to ensure that everyone can exercise the right to seek asylum and find safe refuge in another State, with the option to return home voluntarily, integrate locally or to resettle in a third country.

If you go to their sub-site on "Occupied Palestinian Territory" you'll see that in the Statistical box, the number of refugees "Residing in Occupied Palestinian Territory" is...0. Yep. Zero. Naught. Efes.
And how many in the category of "Originating from Occupied Palestinian Territory"? 340,016.

Really?

Well, we'll solve that problem for you. Go here.

That's right (no pun intended), the Pals. have their own agency: the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, Please pay attention, the term is "Palestine refugees", as in the original resolutions (here and here). Not "Palestinian".

Jews were also included in the assistance program until in the early 1950s, Israel told the UN that 'we can take care of our own, they are not refugees if living in Israel'. See my previous post on this.

But the Arabs, despite that they are living in the areas of the former Mandate of Palestine keep up their refugee status.

But There's Mutual Compensation

A NYTimes editorial stated:-

For the first time, Mr. Bush did say that Israel must compensate Palestinians who left or were driven from their homes in what is now Israel.

This is silly.

First, compensation is in the original UN resolution but the Arabs have always refused that, demanding nothing less than the return to the 1947 borders and the full implementation of a fake "right of return".

Secondly, hey, we have more Jewish refugees from Arab Lands. Where's their money offer?

Shavit Sputters

Ari Shavit is your typical rational middle-of-the-road Israeli intellectual. He's knowledgeable, is unabashedly nationalistic but feels the need to compromise.

So, he writes this:-

An Israeli [peace] initiative in this spirit will not bring an end to the conflict. It will not unravel the Israeli-Palestinian entanglement with one magical thrust. But it will create a gradual change in the situation that will indicate a direction that Israelis and Palestinians should follow.

It will prove that Israel is giving up the ethos of settlement while the Palestinians are beginning to move beyond the ethos of the return.

- - -

The Israeli initiative must have four aspects: Israeli willingness to carry out a limited withdrawal in Judea and Samaria even without a peace agreement

He also writes this:-

The demand for the right of return attests to the fact that in the era of Hamas the Palestinian people are not trying to establish a Palestine that will live alongside Israel, but rather strive to establish a Palestine that will replace Israel. Weaken Israel, put Israel to death and inherit it.

This extremely complex situation has a number of implications. On the one hand, it is clear that at the present historical stage there is no chance of getting the Palestinians to ideologically relinquish the demand for the right of return.

On the other hand, it is clear that without such a concession, any far-reaching Israeli withdrawal is extremely dangerous.

But what bothers me is that the two issues he treats, the right of a Jew to live in his historic homeland, a right recognized and guaranteed by international law, and the supposed 'right' of a 'return' of 'refugees' are unequal.

Arabs are residing in places where they didn't live 60 years ago because they refused to act in line with international law and used violence in expressing their opposition.

Arabs are residing in places where they didn't live 60 years ago because they would not agree for over three decades before the state of Israel was created to compromise.

Arabs are residing in places where they didn't live 60 years ago because they continued to harass and attack and kill Jewish citizens of Israel from 1948 onwards.

Arabs are residing in places where they didn't live 60 years ago because they would accept an autonomy plan or any other foolish proposal by an Israeli government or a its prime ministers based on solutions that don't respond to the problems.

But, again, I wish to emphasize that Shavit and those like him are in error in attempting to equalize and parallelize the two situations, the two national and historical rights and the two resulting realities. Jews living in areas the Arabs and Shavit want them to call Palestine and leave Israel and Zionism alone by having Israel retreat from them do not in any sense cause the same damage that Arabs living in Israel, whether the indigenous population or the expected 'returning refugees'.

One population, the Jewish, doesn't kill and contributes to economic well-being. The other, the Arab, practices terror wherever they are. Refugees returning are negative and Jewish communities are positive. Simple.

I hope Shavit learns sooner than later that he is wrong in his thinking.

Isn't it obvious to you as it is to me?

There They Go

Libya's leader Muammar Gaddafi has decided to boycott the Arab League's summit, set to be held in Riyadh at the end of March, in response to what he considers as the Arab leaders' plan to "sacrifice" the refugee issue in order to please Israel.

Gaddafi is worried that in the framework of the Saudi peace initiative, Arab leaders would concede the refugees' right of return, and agree to have them naturalized in their countries of residence, in a bid to encourage Israel's cooperation with the peace plan.

Libyan newspaper al-Jamahiriya reported this week that Libya may begin deporting Palestinian refugees soon, in protest of the Arab plan.

"Libya will never cooperate with a concession of the refugees' right of return, and will not allow for the settling of refugees far away from their homeland," the paper stated.

"Libya is in negotiations to allow thousands of Palestinians who reside within its territory to move to the Gaza Strip through Egypt, before the plot to settle them in the Arab countries materializes," it added.

Source: Ynet
via INN's Freund and Kippah-tipped from Melanie Phillips.

A Letter the JPost Did Not Publish

Harold Jacobson's letter (Wrong facts, Feb. 23), while admirable, itself contributes to a misreading of UNRWA's mission and thus a misunderstanding.

Neither UN resolution 194 or 302 refer to "Palestinian refugees" but rather "the refugees" (194) and "Palestine refugees" (302). Palestine as ageopolitical entity was not included in the UN's terminology at that time. The refugees were, properly, Arab and Jewish. Just as there were Arab refugees from Jaffa and Jerusalem, so were there Jewish refugees from Jerusalem and Gush Etzion.