This is so interesting. I always hear about Palestinian nationalism starting in the 60s and promoted by Russia. I had no idea there was a movement for Palestinian independence before then.
The Palestinian cause certainly was sidelined by Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf States. And clearly they changed views in 1967 as a politically expedient maneuver. They never believed in the Palestinian cause. This is an interesting counter narrative to the prevailing one. Thank you for resurrecting this history.
Thank you Sheri, such a good article. I learned so much from it. I definitely did not know at all of all these arabs conferences. But as time passed by so everything has changed and right now the so called "palestinian" nationalism became "palestinian" terrorism. It started actually in the 60th supported by european communist terrorist organisations especially in Western Germany. I do not think that now there are any rational solutions except deportation of all arabs from gaza, Judea, Samaria, East Jerusalem. I have seen a couple of interviews with Dor Shachad, the gazas' arab who run away from gaza, converted to Judaism and lives the Jewish life in Israel. I watched it in Russian on a russian youtube channels, but I am sure there are interviews with him in English and Hebrew. I highly recommend to find them and watch.
I agree that Palestinian nationalism has by now become Palestinian terrorism. It doesn't mean that they didn't want us gone back in 1948 -- even though who set up the APG, given they said it encompassed ALL of the mandate with Jerusalem as its capital, but it is interesting and vain to imagine what might have happened if it had been allowed to actually happen and have any governing power over the locals back then.
I believe that they would not stop on gaza, Judea, Samaria as it would be in contradictions with quran, hadith etc. So everything would be the same as it is now.
The doctrine of taquiya and the absence of the words "peace agreement" in arabic - they only use the word "hudna", ceasefire tell everything about them.
“The APG proclaimed Palestinian independence over all of former Mandatory Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital, adopting the flag of the 1916 Arab Revolt.”
So, if I understand correctly, the APG proclaimed a Palestinian state that included all of Israel, correct?
Yes. That is correct. But what they declared and what would have come of it are not necessarily the same. If they were allowed to operate effectively, they would have built the infrastructure for a state and pragmatism had a good chance of winning over their magna Carta ideology. Times were different then.
The Ottomans were Muslims who were the de jure rulers over large parts of the middle East for hundreds of years. They never had a region or province with a name like Falistin.
That is true. I said so in my article. I am not making political statements in this series of articles. I am just bringing voices previously silenced to see what story they tell over time. Hopefully, aside from things you already know, I will bring you things that will be new to you. I certainly have been learning as I research these articles.
The claim, that in 1915 the British promised Sherif Hussein of Mecca that the land of Palestine would come under Arab rule in return for his support against the Turkish Caliphate, is based on the Arabic translation of a letter from Sir Henry McMahon, High Commissioner in Egypt, written on behalf of the Foreign Office.
In a letter to Sir John Shuckburgh of the British Colonial Office in 1922, Sir Henry McMahon wrote the following:
"It was my intention to exclude Palestine from independent Arabia, and I hoped that I had so worded the letter as to make this sufficiently clear for all practical purposes. My reasons for restricting myself to specific mention of Damascus, Hama, Homs and Aleppo in that connection in my letter were: 1) that these were places to which the Arabs attached vital importance and 2) that there was no place I could think of at the time of sufficient importance for purposes of definition further South of the above. It was as fully my intention to exclude Palestine as it was to exclude the more Northern coastal tracts of Syria."
It should be noted that Sir Henry felt sufficiently strongly about this matter to reaffirm this exclusion in a letter that he wrote to The Times in 1937:
“I feel it my duty to state, and I do so definitively and emphatically, that it was not intended by me in giving this pledge to King Hussein to include Palestine in the area in which Arab independence was promised. I also had every reason to believe at the time that the fact that Palestine was not included in my pledge was well understood by King Hussein.”
The special Committee set up to consider certain correspondence which took place in the years 1915 and 1916 between Sir Henry McMahon, His Majesty's High Commissioner in Cairo, and the Sharif of Mecca, found the evidence supporting these assertions to be compelling.
Sir Henry’s assertions were supported by Sir Gilbert Clayton, Chief Secretary to the Palestine Government, who had been on Sir Henry’s staff at the time that the letter was written and who, in a note to the High Commissioner in Palestine in 1923, stated:
“I was in daily touch with Sir Henry McMahon throughout the negotiations, and made the preliminary drafts of the letters. I can bear out the statement that it was never the intention that Palestine should be included in the general pledge given to the Sherif. …It was, I think, obvious that the peculiar interests involved in Palestine precluded any definite pledges in regard to its future at so early a stage”.
These statements were also supported by the Duke of Devonshire, the Secretary of State for the Colonies in 1923, who told the House of Lords of the alleged promises:
“Whether they were expressed in the best terms or not, it is perhaps not for me to say, but undoubtedly, there was never any intention when the pledge was given to recognise the independence of the Arabs so as to include Palestine.”
They were also confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in 1936-1938, William Ormsby Gore, another who had been on Sir Henry’s staff in 1916, who said in a statement to Parliament:
“I wish myself to testify that the fact that it never was in the mind of anyone on that staff that Palestine west of the Jordan was in the area within which the British Government then undertook to further the cause of Arab independence…. I want it clearly and finally understood that His Majesty’s Government, neither then nor now, can or will admit that Palestine west of the Jordan was included in the pledge given to the Sherif.”
Because of the claim, in 1920 Colonel A. C. Vickery, an expert in Arabic, was sent from Cairo to inspect the Arabic versions of the letters and reported:
“…It was quite evident that Palestine was not included in the proposals to the King…I can say most emphatically that the King’s demands were centred around Syria, and only around Syria…. He stated most emphatically that he did not concern himself at all with Palestine and had no desire to have suzerainty over it for himself and his successors”.
In 1922 a White Paper issued by the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, Winston Churchill, stated:
“That letter is quoted as conveying the promise to the Sherif of Mecca to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories proposed by him. But this promise was given subject to a reservation made in the same letter, which excluded from its scope, among other territories, the portions of Syria lying to the West of the District of Damascus. This reservation has always been regarded by Her Majesty’s Government as covering the Vilayet of Beirut and the Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir H. McMahon’s pledge.”
In January 1919, the Sherif's son and leader of the Arab army Emir Faisal, representing and acting on behalf of Kingdom of Hejaz, signed an agreement with Chaim Weizmann, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization, which included the following articles:
“Article I - The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in their respective territories.
Article II - Immediately following the completion of deliberations of the Peace Conference, the definite boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a commission to be agreed upon by the parties hereto.
Article III - In the establishment of the Constitution and Administration of Palestine all such measures shall be adopted as will afford the fullest guarantees for carrying into effect the British Government’s Declaration of the 2nd of November, 1917 (Balfour Declaration-SEH).
Article IV - All necessary measures will be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasants and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights, and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.
Article V - No regulation or law shall be made prohibiting or interfering in any way with the free exercise of religion; and further the free exercise and expression of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall for ever be allowed. No religious test shall ever be required for the exercise of civil or religious rights.
Article VI - The Mohammedan Holy Places shall be under Mohammedan control”.
Under a hand-written codicil, inserted some days later, the agreement became null and void when the Emir Faisal was later removed from the throne of Syria shortly after taking office. It is clear, however, that Faisal, the leader of the Arab revolt had already acknowledged that Palestine would not form part of the Arab State and that the Jews could have a state of their own there.
This was confirmed in a letter dated March 1919 addressed to Judge Felix Frankfurter, who was attached to the US delegation to the Peace Conference, which was signed by Emir Faisal but believed to have been drafted by T. E. Lawrence:
“We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist Movement. Our delegation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference and we regard them as moderate and proper.”
These proposals, which had been submitted by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference, to which the Emir referred, included the establishment of a National Home for Jews in Palestine under the temporary Trusteeship of Great Britain with the ultimate aim of creating an autonomous Commonwealth.
It is also apparent that, by the spring of 1919, whatever Sherif Husein had previously understood from the exchange of letters with Sir Henry both he and his sons had accepted that Palestine had not been promised to the Arabs and would not form part of the Arab State. The myth of the “twice promised land” has lingered only in the minds of those who have not examined the documents or who have no wish to believe the evidence.
I know you’re sharing this material with good intentions.
The history of the McMahon correspondence and the Faisal–Weizmann agreement is certainly important, but it’s outside the scope of this article which is about 1967-1987 and beyond the scope of this series. Palestinian Voices is focused only on how Palestinians themselves described their reality in each period, not on what others said about them or about the land. I won’t be revisiting that debate here.
This is so interesting. I always hear about Palestinian nationalism starting in the 60s and promoted by Russia. I had no idea there was a movement for Palestinian independence before then.
Very insightful. You manage to find the needle of reality in the haystack of fabulation. Always eager to read your work.
Fabulous description
Thanks
Thank you
Well done. Thank you for writing this. I look forward to reading the rest of this series.
Thanks. Working hard at it.
1967 is nearly sixty years ago. I think it’s also fair to speak about the development of Palestinian nationalism since.
yes, and that will be one thing I examine in the next articles in this subseries.
The Palestinian cause certainly was sidelined by Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf States. And clearly they changed views in 1967 as a politically expedient maneuver. They never believed in the Palestinian cause. This is an interesting counter narrative to the prevailing one. Thank you for resurrecting this history.
You write very well
You are comprehensible
Two assets hard to find currently
Thank you very much.
Thanks for the excellent history lesson!
It was new to me too. That's why I love writing; I learn so much.
Thank you Sheri, such a good article. I learned so much from it. I definitely did not know at all of all these arabs conferences. But as time passed by so everything has changed and right now the so called "palestinian" nationalism became "palestinian" terrorism. It started actually in the 60th supported by european communist terrorist organisations especially in Western Germany. I do not think that now there are any rational solutions except deportation of all arabs from gaza, Judea, Samaria, East Jerusalem. I have seen a couple of interviews with Dor Shachad, the gazas' arab who run away from gaza, converted to Judaism and lives the Jewish life in Israel. I watched it in Russian on a russian youtube channels, but I am sure there are interviews with him in English and Hebrew. I highly recommend to find them and watch.
I agree that Palestinian nationalism has by now become Palestinian terrorism. It doesn't mean that they didn't want us gone back in 1948 -- even though who set up the APG, given they said it encompassed ALL of the mandate with Jerusalem as its capital, but it is interesting and vain to imagine what might have happened if it had been allowed to actually happen and have any governing power over the locals back then.
I believe that they would not stop on gaza, Judea, Samaria as it would be in contradictions with quran, hadith etc. So everything would be the same as it is now.
The doctrine of taquiya and the absence of the words "peace agreement" in arabic - they only use the word "hudna", ceasefire tell everything about them.
Very interesting. Thank you
“The APG proclaimed Palestinian independence over all of former Mandatory Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital, adopting the flag of the 1916 Arab Revolt.”
So, if I understand correctly, the APG proclaimed a Palestinian state that included all of Israel, correct?
Yes. That is correct. But what they declared and what would have come of it are not necessarily the same. If they were allowed to operate effectively, they would have built the infrastructure for a state and pragmatism had a good chance of winning over their magna Carta ideology. Times were different then.
Explains roots well. Thank you
thank you
The Ottomans were Muslims who were the de jure rulers over large parts of the middle East for hundreds of years. They never had a region or province with a name like Falistin.
That is true. I said so in my article. I am not making political statements in this series of articles. I am just bringing voices previously silenced to see what story they tell over time. Hopefully, aside from things you already know, I will bring you things that will be new to you. I certainly have been learning as I research these articles.
Additional information for those interested:
The claim, that in 1915 the British promised Sherif Hussein of Mecca that the land of Palestine would come under Arab rule in return for his support against the Turkish Caliphate, is based on the Arabic translation of a letter from Sir Henry McMahon, High Commissioner in Egypt, written on behalf of the Foreign Office.
In a letter to Sir John Shuckburgh of the British Colonial Office in 1922, Sir Henry McMahon wrote the following:
"It was my intention to exclude Palestine from independent Arabia, and I hoped that I had so worded the letter as to make this sufficiently clear for all practical purposes. My reasons for restricting myself to specific mention of Damascus, Hama, Homs and Aleppo in that connection in my letter were: 1) that these were places to which the Arabs attached vital importance and 2) that there was no place I could think of at the time of sufficient importance for purposes of definition further South of the above. It was as fully my intention to exclude Palestine as it was to exclude the more Northern coastal tracts of Syria."
It should be noted that Sir Henry felt sufficiently strongly about this matter to reaffirm this exclusion in a letter that he wrote to The Times in 1937:
“I feel it my duty to state, and I do so definitively and emphatically, that it was not intended by me in giving this pledge to King Hussein to include Palestine in the area in which Arab independence was promised. I also had every reason to believe at the time that the fact that Palestine was not included in my pledge was well understood by King Hussein.”
The special Committee set up to consider certain correspondence which took place in the years 1915 and 1916 between Sir Henry McMahon, His Majesty's High Commissioner in Cairo, and the Sharif of Mecca, found the evidence supporting these assertions to be compelling.
Sir Henry’s assertions were supported by Sir Gilbert Clayton, Chief Secretary to the Palestine Government, who had been on Sir Henry’s staff at the time that the letter was written and who, in a note to the High Commissioner in Palestine in 1923, stated:
“I was in daily touch with Sir Henry McMahon throughout the negotiations, and made the preliminary drafts of the letters. I can bear out the statement that it was never the intention that Palestine should be included in the general pledge given to the Sherif. …It was, I think, obvious that the peculiar interests involved in Palestine precluded any definite pledges in regard to its future at so early a stage”.
These statements were also supported by the Duke of Devonshire, the Secretary of State for the Colonies in 1923, who told the House of Lords of the alleged promises:
“Whether they were expressed in the best terms or not, it is perhaps not for me to say, but undoubtedly, there was never any intention when the pledge was given to recognise the independence of the Arabs so as to include Palestine.”
They were also confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in 1936-1938, William Ormsby Gore, another who had been on Sir Henry’s staff in 1916, who said in a statement to Parliament:
“I wish myself to testify that the fact that it never was in the mind of anyone on that staff that Palestine west of the Jordan was in the area within which the British Government then undertook to further the cause of Arab independence…. I want it clearly and finally understood that His Majesty’s Government, neither then nor now, can or will admit that Palestine west of the Jordan was included in the pledge given to the Sherif.”
Because of the claim, in 1920 Colonel A. C. Vickery, an expert in Arabic, was sent from Cairo to inspect the Arabic versions of the letters and reported:
“…It was quite evident that Palestine was not included in the proposals to the King…I can say most emphatically that the King’s demands were centred around Syria, and only around Syria…. He stated most emphatically that he did not concern himself at all with Palestine and had no desire to have suzerainty over it for himself and his successors”.
In 1922 a White Paper issued by the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, Winston Churchill, stated:
“That letter is quoted as conveying the promise to the Sherif of Mecca to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories proposed by him. But this promise was given subject to a reservation made in the same letter, which excluded from its scope, among other territories, the portions of Syria lying to the West of the District of Damascus. This reservation has always been regarded by Her Majesty’s Government as covering the Vilayet of Beirut and the Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir H. McMahon’s pledge.”
In January 1919, the Sherif's son and leader of the Arab army Emir Faisal, representing and acting on behalf of Kingdom of Hejaz, signed an agreement with Chaim Weizmann, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization, which included the following articles:
“Article I - The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in their respective territories.
Article II - Immediately following the completion of deliberations of the Peace Conference, the definite boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a commission to be agreed upon by the parties hereto.
Article III - In the establishment of the Constitution and Administration of Palestine all such measures shall be adopted as will afford the fullest guarantees for carrying into effect the British Government’s Declaration of the 2nd of November, 1917 (Balfour Declaration-SEH).
Article IV - All necessary measures will be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasants and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights, and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.
Article V - No regulation or law shall be made prohibiting or interfering in any way with the free exercise of religion; and further the free exercise and expression of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall for ever be allowed. No religious test shall ever be required for the exercise of civil or religious rights.
Article VI - The Mohammedan Holy Places shall be under Mohammedan control”.
Under a hand-written codicil, inserted some days later, the agreement became null and void when the Emir Faisal was later removed from the throne of Syria shortly after taking office. It is clear, however, that Faisal, the leader of the Arab revolt had already acknowledged that Palestine would not form part of the Arab State and that the Jews could have a state of their own there.
This was confirmed in a letter dated March 1919 addressed to Judge Felix Frankfurter, who was attached to the US delegation to the Peace Conference, which was signed by Emir Faisal but believed to have been drafted by T. E. Lawrence:
“We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist Movement. Our delegation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference and we regard them as moderate and proper.”
These proposals, which had been submitted by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference, to which the Emir referred, included the establishment of a National Home for Jews in Palestine under the temporary Trusteeship of Great Britain with the ultimate aim of creating an autonomous Commonwealth.
It is also apparent that, by the spring of 1919, whatever Sherif Husein had previously understood from the exchange of letters with Sir Henry both he and his sons had accepted that Palestine had not been promised to the Arabs and would not form part of the Arab State. The myth of the “twice promised land” has lingered only in the minds of those who have not examined the documents or who have no wish to believe the evidence.
Answer to What was the endeavor to reclaim territory from Israel called? by Meir Sprecher https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-endeavor-to-reclaim-territory-from-Israel-called/answer/Meir-Sprecher-1?ch=3&share=41a6c86e&srid=B25Fw
I know you’re sharing this material with good intentions.
The history of the McMahon correspondence and the Faisal–Weizmann agreement is certainly important, but it’s outside the scope of this article which is about 1967-1987 and beyond the scope of this series. Palestinian Voices is focused only on how Palestinians themselves described their reality in each period, not on what others said about them or about the land. I won’t be revisiting that debate here.
For those interested, I did publish a separate analysis of the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement a few years ago: The Faisal–Weizmann Agreement Is Not What It Appears [https://www.israeldiaries.com/the-feisal-weizmann-agreement-is-not-what-it-appears/]
Thank you Sheri for your comment.
The so called "Palestinians" can describe themselves in any way they want.
We are here to expose their lies and fabricated origins. Every background material is important to show and prove their fallacies.
Absolutely. I have been exposing their lies along with many others for a long time. The purpose of this series is totally different.