About Us Satellite Oral History
Menu Conflict 101 Zionist FAQ Pictures Donate Satellite View Search Donate Contact Us النسخة العربية
About Us Zionist FAQ Conflict 101 Pictures Maps Zionist Quotes Zionism 101 R.O.R. 101 Oral History Site Members
British 1937 Peel Commission Partition Plan
Post Your Comment  (13 comments


Return to Maps
כדילתרגם לעברית
Posted on September 10, 2001

Return to Maps

Post Your Comment

Posted by Daffy on August 5, 2014 #154895

I don't know WHO/Where/Why/When Somebody thought partitioning the was a 'good idea'!THERE'S no WAY it could or can be considered JUST! I don't want to believe Americans thought it right & I really wonder if they were told any thing REMOTELY resembling the TRUTH! I WAS 3 Y.O when this happened; got a degree in world history 20 years later & almost NONE of this was mentioned! There's NO excuse!
Posted by The Minister DCX on March 25, 2013 #149222

Background information can some times clarify what you think you understand. In order to move the Jews from Europe, the Zion movement sold the British on the idea of going back to the land in which they came or left. That land now belonged to the Palestinians. The British used their power to get the Zionist in there by creating this problem. The Zionist with Americas Assistance help put them in control. Wow that helps me see that the Jewish People plotted and schemed to take the Palestinian land and now control the region with the U.S's help. That is simply evil. Now the American people through military and monotary help, help Irael oppress the Palestinians. This just doesn't seem just.
Posted by Brent on May 27, 2011 #134796

Also the first known mention of the Philistines (who like the indigenous Canaanites, the indigenous Palestinian Arabs also descend from) comes from the year 1150 BCE so around 150 years before the supposed "conquest" of Palestine by David(PBUH): note the corrupted Bible is false, fiction and is not a "historical source" at all. This 1150 BCE mention of the Philistines is from a site called Medinet Habu in Luxor, Egypt.

On Medinet Habu: "Medinet Habu is the name commonly given to the Mortuary Temple of Ramesses III, an important New Kingdom period structure in the location of the same name on the West Bank of Luxor in Egypt. Aside from its intrinsic size and architectural and artistic importance, the temple is probably best known as the source of inscribed reliefs depicting the advent and defeat of the Sea Peoples during the reign of Ramesses III."

Also, "c.1150 BC: Medinet Habu (temple): records a people called the P-r-s-t (conventionally Peleset) among the Sea Peoples who invaded Egypt in Ramesses III's reign."
Peleset means Philistines.

"The mortuary temple of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu depicts the victory over the Philistines who attempted to conquer Egypt:

"They were coming forward toward Egypt . . . Their confederation was the Tjeker, Shekelesh, Denye(n), Wehesh and the Peleset (Philistines)."

The Zionists are white European Khazars.
Posted by Brent on January 13, 2011 #129051

Also another thing that needs to be mentioned in refutation of the claims made by the poster called "Michael" back in October 2009; is that all these claims of who allegedly had a "nationalism" first really aren't important. Because even European Zionist Jews say they created their colonialist doctrine of evil Zionism allegedly in response to European Christian discrimination or "anti-Semitism" (putting aside the fact that European Jews aka Ashkenazis are Khazar Russians and are not Semitic at all).

I have demonstrated via "Israeli" academic Haim Gerber (of Hebrew University in Zionist "Israel") that Palestine and Palestinians were clear territorial and citizenship terms as far back as even the Mamluks in the 13th century CE (putting aside the term going all the way back to the Romans in the 1st century CE and that the Palestinians are descendants of the original inhabitants of the land of Palestine the Canaanites aka Canaan).

One last huge point to keep in mind, "nationalism" in the modern context is a very recent phenomenon in historical terms. "Nationalism" as we know it now really only began around the 17th or 18th centuries CE in Europe. Until that time most people viewed themselves as simply part of a tribe or city not a united nation. But again even Haim Gerber refutes you, Palestine has always existed!
Posted by Brent on January 13, 2011 #129049

In response to the claims of the poster named "Michael" back in October 2009. The Peel Commission was yet another Zionist trick using their control of European colonialist powers in the heyday of European colonialism. The Palestinians were being asked to agree to a totally unfair deal of splitting their homeland in half with invading Zionist European Jews; when in reality Palestinian Arabs were 90% or more of the population of Palestine! Also read up on Zionist collaboration with the Nazis.

Also you bring forward the typical Zionist propaganda ("hasbara") claim that Palestinians allegedly didn't develop a national conscious until after the start of the European Zionist colonization of Palestine; this is demonstrably false. An "Israeli" historian (himself an "Israeli" Jew) Haim Gerber notes the reality:
Palestine and Palestinians have existed as a political entities since medieval times. As Israeli scholar Haim Gerber has noted, Palestine as a territory documented as far back as the Mamluk period in the 13th century. It was documented clearly as a political entity by the Ottomans in the later centuries. Palestine was used in Ottoman documents describe the "balad" or "ard" (Arabic for country or land) the Arab residents of the region lived in, revealing that they saw their country as Palestine and that they were Palestinians (see the work of Israeli Professor, Haim Gerber of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem has written extensively on this).
Posted by mohinder on September 11, 2010 #121215

Just see how Peel commission divides the entire area. Parcels of land scattered here and there. One nation but splintered at 2-3 places. They did the same with Pakistan out of India - East & West Pakistan. very cunning. Taking benefit of the divided people.
Posted by re Michael on October 28, 2009 #93267

There would never have been peace in the Middle East. Zionists want the WHOLE land, and if Palestinians agreed then, Zionists would have occupied the rest anyway; that land wouldn't be enough to their greed! Do you NOT know what the Israeli flag represent?? Land of "Israel" from the Nile to the Euphrates... so wake up and realize that Zionism = occupation and occupation is greed of land, resources and destruction of existing lives.
Posted by Michael on October 22, 2009 #92705

If the Palestinians had accepted the Peel Commission plan in 1937, it would have given the Jews a homeland on the eve of WWII. Hundreds of thousands of Jews escaping eastern Europe would have had a place to go, where few other countries accepted them (and created quotas). In essence, the acceptance of this plan by the Arabs may have prevented the Holocaust.

Unfortunately, the land was under the jurisdiction of the British. It was not a sovereign country of Palestine. The Zionist movement, which was established more then forty years before this plan, had a true presence in Palestine. Instead of using diplomatic means, the Palestinians (rather former Ottoman Turks) used violence against the Jews (although the Jews were not inoccent either). My point is, although the "Palestinian people" had lived on this land for a great deal of time, their nationalist movement was only developed after the introduction of Zionism. The Jews had an equal number of rights to the land, and if the plan had been accepted, well there may as well have been peace in the Middle East today...
Posted by Chris on October 18, 2009 #92305

Sorry meant to say, '...If you notice now, the map grants to the Jews Haifa,Tel Aviv (as a major alternative coastal urban centre) was to remain in Jewish jurisdiction in the small Arab enclave, and the entirey of the Galilee...'
Posted by Chris on October 18, 2009 #92303

As an answer to Phyllis Berry: Apart from the ideological consideration - do you give up 1/3 of your land to foreign colonists who came when your land was occupied by a foreign imperial power that refused you your political rights and democratic administration of your own land - there are also more practical consideration for why the deal was rejected:

1) The map simply did not correspond to the realities on the ground. The Jews did not own that amount of land, (purchased only about 6% by that time, though it was the highest graded land in the land), and the plan was giving them much that they simply had no right to.
2) There were also economic considerations, and these may in fact have been the most important ones.Palestine had two major revenue sources - Haifa as an industrial centre, and the orange groves in the Galilee in the North. In fact the country was dadngerously dependent on the citrus industry, as the British administration had failed to achieve any considerable investment in the rest of the country, and the inflow of capital by the Zionist side aided almost exclusively their own privileged enclave (by that time the Zionist had managed to secure a distinct economic regime in their own areas, and maintained the boycott on Arab labour). Most of the land on the Galilee however belonged to Arabs, and though the Zionists were more productive due to their use of imported technology, the Palestinian growers still produced the majority. If you notice now, the map grants to the Jews Haifa, was to remain in Jewish jurisdiction in the small Arab enclave, and the entirey of the Galilee, which also possessed the best land. The image for the Palestinian side is misleading. A large amount of the land in the Palestinian state is simply the Negev, which is a dessert, while the Eastern Areas are the hilly country, which is less suitable for cultivation. The Palestinian state would be destined for impoverishment.

3) But another very important factor which the map does not reveal, was that the Peel proposals called for forced transfer of the Arabs living in the area to be the Jewish state, a forced transfer of more than a hundred thousand. This was of course completely unacceptable to the Palestinians
Posted by Aarib on March 18, 2009 #71267

All of the water and resources are on the Israeli side...
Posted by golo on March 18, 2009 #71260

Imagine someone comming to your country and saying "hey, i'm going to give 1/3 of your coutntry to these foreigners, what'd you say?".

That's why.
Posted by Phyllis Berry on March 13, 2009 #70690

Looked a good deal for the Arabs - can anyone tell me why not?