9,000 Photos from 1800’s British Mandate of Palestine – with no trace of ‘Palestinians’
Posted on February 13, 2013 by ADMIN 280 Comments
Where ARE all those Palestinians, the proclaimed one million of them who lived in Israel before they were ‘displaced’?
Nowhere.
Nowhere, because they never existed.
And where are all the mosques for those “1 million Palestinians”? With Muslims comes mosques. There can be no Muslim population without a large proportion of mosques. If they had been 1 million at the turn of the Century, or even in 1920 after they began immigrating to fight the British, with their rapid population growth Palestine would consist of over 40 million people today and not 4 million. That alone proves the Palestinian jihad lies. Their population is small because they are new invaders and occupiers who arrived late with an aim to commit jihad. They never lost land that was never theirs to begin with!
The British army permitted merely a few Ottomans to remain due to religious observations, the rest was Jewish. In reality according to eyewitness reports the barren British Mandate had a very small number of people living on it. Félix Bonfils (1831-1885) was a French photographer and writer who was active in the Middle East. Four years after his arrival he reported 15,000 prints of Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and Greece, and 9,000 stereoscopic-views. He traveled to the region several times and we hear of no mass population of Palestinians, which contradicts everything the Palestinians lie about to the world.
Bear Klein Said:
Amen
Bear Klein Said:
CA is given to fantasies.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/The_Jewish_Claim_To_The_Land_Of_Israel.html
@ CuriousAmerican:I am not mad. You like arguing and debating it is obvious. You will grope at anything to try and make a weak point.
You had a funny weak reference to Time Magazine at the rebirth of Israel in 1948 the Arabs were willing to share the country.
I do not think even you believe that bullshit? Do you?
CuriousAmerican Said:
You’re serious ????? Even those of us in Baja Oklahoma understand. Especially the Cherokee.
@ CuriousAmerican:
@ CuriousAmerican:
You seem to be upset the Arabs fight. We can agree that the Arabs fight in an uncivilized fashion; but Jabotinsky did not condemn them for fighting. He knew that any group in their position would resist.
While you and I agree Israeli Jews have a historic connection to the land, the Arabs do not.
Even those Arabs who admit a Jewish connection feel that connection was forfeit after 1800 years. The English primarily came from Denmark about 1600 years ago. I am sure the Danish would not grant them a right of return.
I do not think Jews appreciate the enormity of returning after 1800 years and do not realize how unusual it is. One may not agree with the Arabs but one can understand why the Arabs feel upset.
Do not get mad at me. Get mad at Jabotinsky. He used the word: “colonization,” as did the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association.
Bear Klein Said:
But that , my fuzzy Bear, was the ” white man’s burden” they had no avaristic motivations.
CuriousAmerican Said:
I have maternal Euro ancestry, yet in spite of making a mean Swedish meatball, I emotionally consider myself Jewish. I support Israel 100%. As for the Swedes, what do you expect from a Nation full of blonds?
Israelis are a lot like Texans, don’t mess with them.
The Brits and French colonized other people’s lands.
The Jews have not colonized Israel as it is ours.
Those minorities in our country that accept democracy and individual civil rights can do very well in Israel. The Druze are doing well and now
http://www.thetower.org/article/christians-in-the-holy-land-dont-call-us-arabs/
The Islamists and their supporters call us all sorts of names in their refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish Democratic Nation. It is a religious war with them. So with them it is war. They made their choice.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Did the Amer. Indians accept the 13 Colonies ? I believe they supported the French in order to drive the British out.
Bear Klein Said:
Thank you for this quote.
Ted Belman Said:
Well said Ted, you could be a Texan. “Come and get it” the Men of Gonzales
CuriousAmerican Said:
This quote by Ben Gurion is still relevant today. Whether it is Obama’s State Department not accepting the Israeli annexation of the Golan or our capital in Jerusalem or others who do not feel our arguments are valid.
What matter is building Jewish Towns and homes. Continue building the economy and strengthening our military capabilities. The continuation of population growth and bringing in Jews from other countries.
Yes we should try and persuade others to our rights in the land of Israel based on legal and historical parameters. Some will be persuaded and some will not for many reasons including anti-Jewish prejudice.
In the end it matters that we Jews continue to build the Jewish State of Israel and believe in the Zionist mission and principles.
I don’t know who wrote this article but he doesn’t seem to know his history. He wrote “or even in 1920 after they began immigrating to fight the British”. The Arabs didn’t immigrate to fight the British, they immigrated to benefit from the Jewish economy.
In any event, I didn’t post this article to enlighten readers as to the facts but to expose readers to these phenomenal pictures.
That is an honest opinion.
My point is: The article’s premise – that Palestinians did not exist – is ridiculous. Such articles only detract from the pro-Israel point.
Ted, I am amazed at what Israel allows and forbids.
For ex: Israel should never have allowed the Muslim digging at the Solomon’s Stables. That was an archeological insult to world history.
Preservation of Solomon’s Stables would do more to help Israel’s claims than fluff denials of Palestinian identity.
Not profit! Retaliation against Islamic predations on the West, particularly Spain.
Had the Arabs accepted the Kingdom of Jerusalem, it would still exist. Remember Salah-a-Din.
The Jews did use force: It was called the British Army, which crushed the Arab Revolt (1936-39)
@ CuriousAmerican:
It is irrelevant to me whether you are right or even partly right.
I don’t care how many were there. Its ours now. We owe them nothing.
What is your point?
Jabotinsky admitted that every native population resists colonization. Yes, Jabotinsky used the world colonization.
I do not think it was 2/3rds in 1917, unless you include Christians along with the Jews. But, yes, since the 1840s, Muslims were a minority in Jerusalem. Jews were a plurality, but not an absolute majority in 1840.
That being said, the rest of the country was solidly Muslim, except for Bethlehem area and some German and American colonies around Jaffa.
The country was 90% Muslim around 1900. That may be unfortunate, but it was so.
However one city cannot determine a country, or else Canada would be a part of France by virtue of Montreal which may be 80% French.
If you tell me that native Indians did not exist, I would post something.
Nope! Just amazed at your lack of logic. So UNTexan of you.
Y sus insultos muestran una falta de entendimiento en esta materia Usted tiene que estar desde Oklahoma.
Hmmm!
The Arab Christians – many of them – may go back to 1st century Christians, which means they have some quantum of Hebrew blood, as the first few decades of Christianity had a majority of Jewish believers in Christ. They may be native; in fact they may have more Hebrew ancestry than some modern Jews. DNA indicates that many Ashkenazi Jews have maternal Euro ancestry.
As for the Muslims, this is trickier.
Muslims did not colonize like the English. The English sent out whole populations and did not mix that much. The Spanish only sent out a few men, who intermarried. Much of Latin America is still native Indian.
The Arabs colonized like the Spanish. While some Muslims show Y chromosome from Saudi area, the female line may be native. Muslims intermarried. They may be more native than you care to admit.
And it is unwise to deny evil. Hence it is unwise to deny Palestinians.
Deal with the problem. Do not deny it.
Yes, I do; and i have told the Arabs that they run up against archeology.
Yes! I do. As for being entitled to a country, I think their objection is where that country is. Herzl considered buying a province in Argentina. Had you done so, I doubt the Arabs would be upset.
That is the issue. They perceive it as their land.
Yes! But the point is immaterial. Are the Australians really distinct from New Zealanders or Canadians? Yet, these are countries. Uruguay is almost totally identical to Argentina. In fact, were once the same province.
People define themselves all the time. By 1911, Palestine had a Filastin newspaper. So they had a pre-Mandate self-identity.
I am not denying Jewish claims to the land; I see this as competing claims.
See above answer. The locals were identifying as Palestinians during the Ottoman Period.
Texans could not decide whether to call themselves Texicans, Texians, or Texans originally. They did not know if they wanted to be Texan or American. Now, they are reconsidering independence. Yet, no one doubts that Texans exist. That is a false argument.
Arafat was born in Egypt to a Palestinian father. His mother’s family was from Jerusalem. He had a more recent connection to the land that Shamir who was Polish born. False argument on your part.
In 1948, the Arabs were willing to share Palestine under a federated unitary Republic – according to Time Magazine 1948. It was the Yishuv that wanted a separate Jewish state, and would not accept sharing.
LOOK I AM NOT OPPOSED TO ISRAEL. BUT YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE WEAK.
I AM AMAZED AT HOW OFTEN PRO-ISRAEL SUPPORTERS GIVE SCRIPTED ANSWERS. ANSWERS WHICH WORKED IN 1950, BUT NO LONGER AS MORE INFO HAS COME TO LIGHT.
May I suggest that there are better arguments in favor of Israel than the ones you have given.
Archeology is one of Israel’s strongest points; yet is rarely used. One can easily puncture holes in San Remo or the Balfour Declaration, but archeology is rather empirical, and hard to deny.
One can have a good case but lose the debate on logic. Too often hasbarists play on emotion rather than logic. A good logician could tear down their points, which is what is happening now as more people become familiar with the NEW historians; and Israeli and British archives are being opened up. Until 1950, with the publication of Balfour’s letters, no one knew that he admitted being deceitful to the public in his support of Zionism. He did not admit publicly that he intended to override the Palestinian Arab will in a flagrant disregard of democracy, but in 1950s his personal papers came out.
But one absolutely unassailable point in Israel’s favor is archeology. Why you bring up questionable legalities and ignore rock solid archeology is beyond me.
The Zionists didn’t want immediate statehood – they thought it would be impractical. Harry Sacher wrote a book published by the World Zionist Association that listed immediate statehood as one of the alternatives but British trusteeship was preferred. Sacher, A Jewish Palestine, the Jewish case for a British trusteeship.
in 1917 at the time of the Balfour Declaration there were 6 times as many Arabs in Palestine as Jews, but in the Jerusalem Area, 2/3rds the population were Jews. SSRN.com/abstract=2679399
THE RIGHTS OF JEWS TO OWN THE LAND OF ISRAEL RESTS UPON A MULTITUDE OF HISTORICAL, POLITICAL, RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL GROUNDS. Arabs are not a native people of Palestine (Israel) and can live on this land only as a peaceful citizens.
Arabs deny the Jewish rights and started war and terror,
and this is the reason their rights are in question.
Arabs expelled more than 800,000 Jews from Arab countries, who lived there long before Arabs captured these lands from indigenous people, and brutally destroyed their religions and cultures. All Jewish properties in Arab Countries were confiscated. Give these properties to Palestinian refugees (hundreds of billions of dollars) and their problems will be solved.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Ted, that is going a bit too far. I know you want the land, Ted; but it is preposterous to deny the Arab presence.
You still don’t get it. Right now we are in the middle of Passover – when the Jewish nation was born. And our homeland is?
Not just local Arabs. Just over 2000 years ago there weren’t any pesky Christians – a nice thought! 🙂 🙂 🙂
We can and will set the record straight as to their intentions in the ME and in particular to us – the Jews. That’s G-ds job to erase them from history…..hmmmm it has been done before!
so does evil
Just curious as to why you keep coming on this site and expect us to err on the side of caution and compassion for our enemies? Do you really think they will ever have a change of heart? Did Pharoah?
CuriousAmerican Said:
When was the last time you gave a damn whether the Amer. Indians existed. Or is it “out of sight, out of mine”.
Did I hit a nerve. Is that beam in your eye brothering you. Hypocrite !!!!
Keli-A Said:
At least this statement is honest.
We did not come to concur the Amer. Indian, but to teach them the white man’s way. Custer, just an unfortunate occurrence. Smallpox, who knew. CuriousAmerican feels justified cause his religion saved their souls. More or less.
CuriousAmerican Said:
hahahahahahahhaha Oh give me a break.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Arabs do exist and existed and the fact is irrelevant to the current conflict.
CuriousAmerican Said:
That some may have existed on the Land for a few generations most haven’t and just because they are now here whether thru immigration into Palestine and even Israel most come through high birthrates and Jewish modern medicine and food afforded them. Gives them no political rights other than those the legitimate Israeli government awards them. What was give (citizenship) in error can be taken back ask Jordan.
Israel should preserve the rights to life and property for Palestinians as long as that does not involve attacking Israelis. But there is no right to have a country, let alone a country within specific borders; that is done by force. The violence, moreover, is not endless. A few crushing defeats can change a nation’s mind, especially when a good economy switches the focus of ambitions, as was the case with France under Napoleon and later with Germany. A balance of power struggle is usually bloodless.
The Arabs accepted the medieval Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem,[21] created by brute power for the familiar goal of profit. If twentieth-century Jews had used force, the Arabs would have had no problem, but the Israelis made a crucial mistake: they attempted to justify their claims not by force but by religion. It is one thing to say to someone, “Give me this thing, because I’m stronger and will kill you if you do not.” It is quite another to argue that you want to take this thing for ideological reasons which are irrelevant to him. He will not only find counter-arguments but will also develop the will to fight, because as he sees it, your position is wrong and his, right.
As of 1917 in the Jerusalem Area, the Jews were two thirds the population of Palestine but overall, for all Palestine, the Jews were only one sixth. That is why the Palestine Mandate permitted immediate settlement as of right, and promoted Jewish immigration but deferred the self-government of the Jewish people until there was a Jewish population majority and the Jewish People had the capability of exercising sovereignty. SSRN.com/abstract=2679399 See the evidence in British Foreign Office Memorandum dated December 19, 1917 by Arnold Toynbee and Lewis Namier explaining the Balfour Declaration, and see the excerpt on Palestine from the American Proposal on Peace Negotiations http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~samuel/americandraft.htmld
All of these Arabs came to what is Israel today from the neighboring Arab countries for jobs that were created by the early Jewish pioneering communal settlements and British development of the region, and that does qualify them as coherent and adherent autonomously identifiable people, like the Gypsies, Kurd s, Armenians, and so on. One of the prerequisites of becoming a new nation or some new peoples is to separate oneself from its original culture, their Muslim Arab brother’s and start anew. Which they have failed to do as of yet. They can certainly go back to the Arab countries where they came from and there would be no culture shock. If the wealthy Arab Captors love them so much, they can take them in. These so-called Palestinian people were created for a political purpose only, is to help to destroy Israel. A true newly emerging nation in the 20th and the 21st century doesn’t call for the genocide, annihilation and destruction of another nation and their country. I don’t see any historical evidence of a then existing Palestinian People, and as Arabs just living on the land dose not constitute entitlement to a new sovereign country, otherwise each ethnic group living in a large enclave in any country could declare sovereignty.
It is shameful of the so called civilized British not stepping to the plate and tells the world the truth about their original partition plan of what then was Palestine.
It is high time that we have a worldwide symposium to determine once and for all the true fundamentals and basic requirements that constitutes people-hood.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Arab populations in Palestine should refer to permanent Arab populations not Bedouine tribes who moved from place to place all over the region were never considered permanent or affiliated with any modern national entity…. Before the British and French dividing the ME there were no modern national states all were part of the Ottoman Empire and all local Arabs considered themselves aligned to either Egypt and Syria with some few from Iraq and later from Saudia Arabia.
While many mistakenly believe Palestinians today lay claim to land they once owned. Israel did not violate their right of ownership. Rather, the Palestinians claim they lost jurisdiction over a country they never had. Before the rise of Palestinian nationalism in the 1970s, the Arab rioters and terrorists were anti-Israeli, not pro-Palestine. If private ownership of some land means jurisdiction over the whole country, the Jews who bought land had a better claim to Palestine in 1947 than the indigenous Arabs who largely lacked title. But private ownership of land is unrelated to jurisdiction even over that parcel, let alone over any wider entity. The Arabs claimed more land than they actually needed and already had in Palestinian dominated Jordan. The Israelis had to force an accommodation.
The difference is: No one ever denied Indians were on the land.
This article denies what Americans never denied.
The above article is historically ridiculous.
I know the Palestinians are a problem; but they do exist.
@ Keli-A:
I entirely agree.
@ CuriousAmerican:
My question to you is:
By what right do the Arabs have to independent statehood? No government takes the idealist claim of the right to statehood seriously. Otherwise, Russia would let Chechnya secede, and Britain would have agreed to an independent Ireland long before it did. Taken to its logical extreme, the right to statehood would dissolve modern states into village-size communities and eventually abrogate the host states.
Why should the Palestinians have only the West Bank instead of all their pre-1948 territory, including today’s Israel? Why should the Israelis agree to partition instead of claiming the Promised Land in its entirety, including all of Palestine? The answer hinges on the equilibrium of force, the route David took to conquer the Temple Mount.
Why was splitting along religious lines acceptable in Yugoslavia and Indonesia but not in Israel? If African tribes hardly out of the Stone Age are entitled to sovereignty on their ancestral lands, how much more are the Jews? If world opinion accepts the suppression of the long-standing nationalist aspirations of weak minorities, the Spanish Basques or the Russian Tatars, why not let Israelis suppress the hardly three-decades-old Palestinian nationalism of a non-nation with no distinctive culture, the Palestinians? Why do the people who set up the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem during the crusades condemn Israeli control of the city? If white settlers displaced the aboriginal Americans and Australians to create viable states, why should Israelis not do the same? If no state objected to the creation of Saudi Arabia by conquest, why refuse a similar justification for Israel? If ethnic populations were relocated from Poland and Czechoslovakia to pacify Germany, why reject a similar approach in Palestine?
The photos of the railroad maps don’t necessarily substantiate a significant Arab population, but rather this narrow gauge railway was built by imported ‘fella’ (landless peasants) Arab labor and when completed, the men imported their families in anticipation of receiving land allotments upon the demise/termination of Turkish/Ottoman absentee ownership. The majority of Arabs were either transients or imported for British labor.
The ‘keys’ that the Arabs brandish as proof of ownership were in fact not their own keys; they were those of the absentee Ottoman owners. The Arabs got to use the houses when the Turks were not present and moved out when the Turks came for the dry season (wet and cold in Turkey). Ottoman ‘Palestine was the Palm Springs of that day.
Twain also commented the the Dome of the Rock was filled with pigeon dung and the roof broken. It was no place of active Muslim patronage, but all but forgotten for centuries. Its significance is what it is not; to focal point of worship, now turned to Mecca with their posteriors facing the Dome and Foundation Stone.
On another point mentions, the statistics data for ‘non-Jews’ presented fails to take into account that the Ottomans tried to populate the Levant with non-Arabs, which inflates the non-Jewish’ numbers, for example Circasians were imported from the Caucuses.
If you bother to read the whole o the Twain quotation, he makes it clear that pilgrims to ‘Palestine’ had to stay with the Nuns and Monks, not with the armed Arab shepherds. Its pretty clear that there are no descriptions of people as much as desolate locations of historical importance. No color dress, no families with children, no tinkers, no sellers of souvenirs, no markets, no people of import and their conversations with Twain, nothing. Its what Twain fails to state because there is nothing there. No Arab society. Empty, and Twain says so.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Mark Twain said the land was mostly barren. Yes there were some Arabs.
By the way do you object of the Arabs attempt to say we have no history in the land of Israel?
Do you object when the Arabs says the Jews are not a people and are not entitled to a country? I do not object to Arabs having many countries but not just one more in our land.
By the way do you believe the so-called Palestinians are people distinct in culture, language or religion from the Syrians or Saudis or Iraqis?
The Bedouin or other Arabs in the area called Palestine in the 1800s did they call themselves Palestinians? Where they different then other Arabs in the Ottoman Empire?
In the 1900s in the Land of Israel (prior to the rebirth of the State) the Jews were called Palestinians. The Arabs were called called Arabs. Some considered themselves Southern Syrians.
Arafat was an Egyptian. The PLO covenant of 1964 said Gaza belonged to Egypt and the West Bank belonged to Jordan. They wanted only Israel as it borders where before 1967. Now they want it all.
So what is clear the Arabs want the Jews out. They will lie and change history anything to get rid of the Jews in the Land and State of Israel. If they would be willing to share the land peacefully the Jews would agree. They do not.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Remember these guys ??? I bet not !!!!! ” Better the splinter in another’s eyes , the beam in you own”. An itinerate Jewish Rabbi of the 1st Century AD.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSdNDFj5zJQ
I am not saying erasing. They were places which had people, but most of the area was not POPULATED.
Also, the Palestinians are human beings and I am not for expelling them or whatever the religious Israeli right pretends…
But they were not the majority during Twain’s visit and were very poor. The land was in the hands of Arabs landowners not living in Israel and were cultivated by “fedhyin”, near the areas w/ water……………
CuriousAmerican Said:
If Andy Jackson can do it.
CuriousAmerican Said:
it’s worth a try.
Actually Twain did mention staying in an Arab village, and mentioned that Nablus was under cultivation.
Napoleon fought a severe battle at Jaffa in 1799. They were locals.
I know you wish the Arabs were not there, but unfortunately they were.
The Turkish Hejaz Railway for pilgrims going to Mecca, stopped in Haifa, Acre, Afula, and Nablus. There were Arab people there.
Just because the Arabs are inconvenient you cannot erase them from history.
Ted, that is going a bit too far.
On page 429, Twain writes:
I know you want the land, Ted; but it is preposterous to deny the Arab presence.
Around 1900, it was recognized that there were around 500,000 Arabs. By 1948, by natural increase alone, this would have increased to 1.3 million Arabs. (Click Here) to see Jewish Virtual Library statistics.
Jaffa (Yafo) was obviously full of Arabs. They put up a ferocious resistance to Napoleon in 1799. Napoleon won, but at a severe cost.
Here is a nice picture
Ottoman Palestine
http://ilmfeed.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/49.jpg
Notice the Turkish Flag. Notice the sign. Deutsche-Palestina Bank (German Palestine) Bank.
Ted,you cannot deny the Palestinians’ existence just because they are inconvenient. They were there. They were there in enough numbers that it conveniences you.
Twain mentions the locals. We have photographs of the locals.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ottoman_palestine_1/3653199857
I know you want to imagine the local Arabs did not exist. It would make life a lot easier for the Zionist project. But the Ottomans did not build railroad stops on the Hejaz Railway in Haifa, Acre, and Nablus, Afula for a people who did not exist.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Ferrocarril_del_hiyaz_EN.PNG
The Palestiians existed, no less than the Canaanites once existed. Love ’em or hate ’em, they existed.
That quote is preposterous.
Another photo of Ottoman era
http://histclo.com/imagef/date/2013/02/ram-und01s.jpg
The Palestinians are inconvenient, but they were there.
It has to be repeated and published, disseminated, etc.,etc
Read Mark Twain that in his book “Innocents abroad) and touring the ME proclaimed the land to be abandoned.
Also, when the Jewish people started colonizing Israel proper, Arabs from other countries came for work: the Clan al-Masri (meaning the Egyptian0 came from Egypt, al-Horani: from Syria; Tara Bulsi from Tripoli; Sidawi from Sidon, Sourani, from Tyre…………..etc.etc.