Zionism and the Bedouin’s ethnic cleansing

A review of The History and Politics of the Bedouin (Routledge, London, 2018) Seraj Assi

In January of this year, the JNF resumed their afforestation projects, working in the Naqab around several Bedouin villages, “unrecognised” by the Israeli state and, hence, deprived of all infrastructure and services. 

The current ethnic cleansing (2023) faced by Bedouin communities in the Naqab (Negev) in which the JNF UK, as well as its Israeli parent body the JNF-KKL, are major actors has brought only modest international attention to a historically marginalised and widely ignored section of the Palestinian people.  Assi’s 2018 study provides some background to how the British and the Zionists sought to dominate and, in the process, to differentiate the Bedouin from the other sections of the population over which they ruled.  As Assi concedes, his focus is on the politics of the rulers rather than of the Bedouin: “a grand tale woven of master narratives and founding fathers, an empire-wide discourse in which the Bedouin voice is only vaguely heard”.  As a consequence, the story of how the Bedouin have resisted the colonisers is absent.  Nevertheless, Assi provides important insights into the Zionist colonial mindset.  

In 1961, Ben-Gurion, one of the founding figures of the Israeli state and its first prime minister, wrote the following in “Call for Desert Communities and Science”: “The small State of Israel cannot long tolerate within its bounds a desert which takes up half its territory. If the State does not put an end to the desert, the desert is liable to put an end to the State.”

Ben Gurion retired to a kibbutz in the Naqab to inspire further Zionist settlement there and the Israeli political elite has continued to devise grand schemes to transform the Naqab

into a high-tech Silicon Valley-type development area that would form its future industrial-military complex.  Although little progress has been made in terms of developing the technical infrastructure and the 2013 Prawer-Begin Bill to forcibly remove 35 unrecognised Bedouin villages, evicting thereby up to 70,000 Arab citizens of Israel, was dropped in the face of protests, the efforts to ethnically cleanse the Bedouin continue.

Assi shows that much of current Zionist planning to dispose of the Bedouin builds on racist notions that can be traced to British colonial officials and the early Zionist settlers. They ascribed to the Bedouin a lack of attachment to the land and a primitiveness that placed them on the outside of history, in a kind of eternal backwardness. Assi defines this ideological construction as “nomadism”. Before the Zionist movement’s ideology crystallised into the classic settler colonial mould, there were some Zionists who, out of biblically-informed nostalgia, were fascinated with and sought to mimic the Bedouin.   

In contrast, British officials tended to see the Bedouin as a “martial race,” which, as elsewhere in the Empire, deemed them to be suitable for recruitment as foot soldiers in the imperial army. John Glubb, the officer who headed the Arab League, nominally for King Abdullah of Transjordan but in substance in the interests of the British state, is cited by Assi as lauding the Bedouin as “excellent military material [who] have not as yet been infected by the European virus of nationalism”. However, some British officials favoured prioritising the economic development of the Naqab and, by contrast, they considered the Bedouin to be an obstacle to modernity who should make way for Jewish settlers.   

The Labour Zionist leadership in Palestine that, by the early 1930s, came to lead the Jewish settler community (the Yishuv), had much the same view. It promoted ownership rights to the land by racializing Jews as the modernisers and nation builders in contrast to the Bedouin who were of “pure Arab blood” from Arabia who, having invaded Palestine, laid waste to its agriculture: “a race of foreign conquerors responsible for destroying the fertile granary of Roman Palestine’.”

Labour Zionists found other grounds for delegitimizing the Palestinian peasantry’s claim to Palestine.  The fellahin, they argued, descended from the ancient Hebrews but had become of mixed race, generally Levantine, a process which Zionist leaders rejected for Jews out of the fear that it would represent a degeneration, a corruption of their European culture. It is one of the many internal contradictions of Zionism, that it simultaneously lays claim to Palestine on the grounds of both Jewish indigeneity and as a means of importing a superior European culture, in much the same way as colonisers did in Africa and the Americas.  The Zionists’ identification of the Bedouin with nomadism and with a foreign invasion of Palestine was meant to portray them as the very antithesis of the Jewish settlers – pioneering  people who would be cultivating the land and nation building.  

In 1937, Ben-Gurion wrote to his son: “If not allotted to the Jewish state, the Negev will remain barren … the Arabs have neither the competence nor the need to develop it or make it prosper.” The ethnic cleansing of the Bedouin that followed in the Nakba led their population to fall from 53,000 to 12,500, though it’s a reflection of their resistance and resourcefulness that it now stands at around 240,000.  The Zionist remedy for the backwardness they attributed to the Bedouin was not to try to integrate them into some form of economic development or to force them into settled agriculture, as some British colonial officials had contemplated, but to remove them altogether.

In recent times, Israel’s land grab under the masquerade of the Jewish National Fund’s various environmental projects or on the pretext of security needs, has accelerated the destruction of Bedouin villages – bulldozing the village of Al Araqib, on 7th June 2022, for the 204th time since 2000 and the eighth time that year – in order to force their inhabitants into urban slums.   It is precisely the Bedouins’ attachment to their land, a quality Zionists have persistently claimed they lack, that makes them into a target for Israel’s ruthless ethnic cleansing.  The defiance of the Bedouin villages in the face of Israeli efforts to erase them refutes the notion that their inhabitants are inherently nomadic.  In reality, Bedouin are persecuted not for defying the modern world but for defying Israeli colonisation.

In January 2022, when KKL-JNF efforts at afforestation focused on the Bedouin lands near the village of Sa’wa, Adalah, the Legal Centre for Arab Rights in Israel, reported that the JNF-KKL plantings sparked widespread protests, to which the Israeli police responded by “using rubber bullets, rubber-coated steel bullets and drones that dropped tear gas grenades” and that they had “subjected protestors to mass arrest and detention”.  The afforestation that was relaunched this year (2023) is also certain to meet Bedouin resistance and will doubtless be met again by brutal Israeli military repression, which no amount of greenwashing can separate from acts of colonial conquest. The current chair of the Israeli section of JNF-KKL, is cited by Adalah as declaring: “holding onto and protecting the land along with settlements and planting trees were the core values of JNF-KKL, from the early days of the Zionist movement, and we are proud to be leading these fields today as well”.

As Assi concludes: “A fundamental feature of settler colonialism, in its Zionist and Israeli version, lies in its ethnic character. Thus, land settlement and the ownership of property are not just economic spheres but contested spaces to be conquered, nationalised and Judaized”. 

Stop the JNF UK warmly welcomes Friends of the Earth Scotland’s 2023 AGM Resolution to Support the Plant a Tree in Palestine Campaign. July 2023

FoE Scotland’s 2023 motion at the AGM to support Palestinian land rights by engaging with the Plant a Tree passed unanimously. The motion noted that this campaign is “supporting indigenous, sustainable, farmer-led tree-planting in order to support Palestinians in areas under attack from settler and Israeli military violence, to remain, steadfast, on their lands and resist the settler colonisation of their lands.”

This move is timely. Israeli settlers, all of them living illegally on occupied Palestinian land, are habitually carrying out pogroms against Palestinian farmers and village communities: Plant a Tree offers practical support and political solidarity.

During these attacks, the Israeli Occupation Forces either stand back and support the outrages – or they protect the settlers. These settlers’ attacks are nothing new but are an intensification of established practices and policies of making life unbearable for Palestinians on the land – in reality the settlers are agents of the government’s drive to take Palestinian land by uprooting Palestinian people– an age-old Zionist tactic of erasure of the indigenous people.

Stop the JNF applauds Friends of the Earth Scotland for this decision and urges other FoE and environmental groups to follow suit by taking this practical step to show solidarity with the men and women of the land of Palestine.

 Just as we stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people resisting Zionist colonisation, so we extend solidarity to all peoples fighting for environmental justice as supported by our Friends of the Earth comrades.  (The full text of the FoE Scotland motion is below).

Background: Friends of the Earth International and Friends of the Earth Scotland have a distinguished history of supporting Palestinian land rights:

In 2012, an International Friends of the Earth delegation led to the publication of “Environmental Nakba: Environmental injustice and violations of the Israeli occupation of Palestine.” This report documents some of the environmental injustice, settler colonialism and ethnic cleansing that the delegation observed across historic Palestine.

In 2020, the AGM of FoE Scotland overwhelmingly supported a motion in advance of COP 26 which threw a spotlight on the glaring error of allowing the JNF/KKL to have observer status in this important environmental conference.  Friends of the Earth Scotland’s resolution that year (“Stop the JNF Greenwashing Ethnic Cleansing”) recognised that the JNF played a major role in the colonisation and ethnic cleansing of Palestine from its inception in 1901 to this day.

As well as challenging JNF’s observer status at COP 26, FoE Scotland committed itself to offer support to the Sumarin family who face eviction at the hands of Himnuta, a JNF proxy, and to call on MPs to sign EDM 529 in support of the family. The organisation also agreed to support a future challenge to the charitable status of the KKL in Scotland.

Full text of the 2023 FoE Scotland Resolution:

 Friends of the Earth Scotland notes that: 

2023 marks the 75th anniversary of the Palestine Nakba (catastrophe), when Zionist militia, empowered by the Balfour declaration and trained and supported by British mandate administration, drove 750,000 Palestinians from their lands in a project of ethnic cleansing in order to control the ecological resources of Palestine free of its indigenous population;

The Nakba (catastrophe) of ethnic cleansing has continued, not least through environmental degradation of Palestinian land and water by settler colonisation, which has been documented by Friends of the Earth Palestine and International;

The Jewish National Fund has played a key role in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians for over 100 years, but today presents itself as an environmental organisation, including through its subsidiary branch JNF/KKL Scotland, registered as an environmental charity in Scotland;

The Stop the JNF Plant a Tree in Palestine campaign is supporting indigenous, sustainable, farmer-led tree-planting in order to support Palestinians in areas under attack from settler and Israeli military violence, to remain, steadfast, on their lands and resist the settler colonisation of their lands. 

Therefore, FoES agrees to:

Support and promote the Stop the JNF Plant a Tree in Palestine campaign.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kings Forests in Galilee by Ben White

“In 1976, the King Forest was launched in memory of the slain civil rights leader, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Then, 39 trees – symbolizing each year of his life – were ceremoniously planted in the southern Galilee. Today that forest boasts thousands of trees.” (1)


In 2007, the Associated Press filed a story reproduced by, amongst others, Haaretz (2), reporting that “Israel will name a forest in northern Galilee after Coretta Scott King” (who died in 2006). This was part of a wider campaign to replant “thousands of trees destroyed during last year’s war with Hezbollah”. At least 10,000 trees will be designated as a “living memorial to King’s legacy of peace and justice”, according to
US Israeli ambassador, Sallai Meridor.


Although it was a small story that merited a few paragraphs of a news agency feed, unpacking this publicity stunt can be instructive in understanding just how successful Zionist propaganda has been in tapping into US culture, appropriating iconic symbols of popular struggle for Israel’s benefit.


The choice to name the forest after the late wife of Martin Luther King resonates with Americans on three levels, each with specific propaganda value.

 

Firstly, it suggests a shared struggle between African Americans and Jews against persecution, a historical and contemporary reality that is both true and false at the same time. The news of the new Coretta forest was accompanied by a tree planting in Washington DC, attended by two black members of Congress; one, Rep. Alcee Hastings, commented how “Jews and blacks share a common historical bond of persecution and perseverance” (1,2).


In one sense African Americans and Jews have been and are subjected to persecution by state and non-state actors. Yet there is also a level of meaning that is explicitly Zionist – that the modern state of Israel is a besieged haven for worldwide Jewry, at once the saviour and the persecuted. In a complete inversion of reality, the Israeli state is associated with the US civil rights movement in order to appropriate a symbol of the struggle of the weak against the strong: Israel the coloniser becomes Israel the ‘victim’. It is a move that Zionism has attempted before, as Joseph Massad notes: “Naming the ‘Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel’ as the ‘Declaration of Independence’ is then to be seen as an attempt to recontextualize the new Zionist territorial entity as one established against not via colonialism.” (3)


This strategy has been given a new lease of life in recent times. Many left-liberals in the UK and elsewhere have been busy propagating the story of an existential battle against ‘Islamo-fascists’. Lately, this has involved a chaotic attempt to reposition Israel as a bulwark against fascism, imperialism and, of course, ‘jihadi terror’.


Secondly, it is also significant that the symbolic tree-planting took place at a church. Most analysis of Christian Zionist support for Israel in the US has concentrated on the typical image of white evangelical southerners, yet black-majority Protestant churches, often rooted in the Pentecostal tradition, can be more fervently Zionist.


Surveys conducted by the Pew Forum have found support amongst AfricanAmericans for views such as, “Israel fulfils the prophecy of the second coming” to be higher than the average on both a national level, as well as amongst Protestants (4)


The Israeli ambassador to the US, in the officially released report of the tree-planting, said how he was “inspired by the Kings as a young child in Israel”, who “made the world a better place, and we think made all of us better human beings”.


The official site of the JNF announces that naming a forest after Coretta Scott King is part of “perpetuating her message of equality and peace” (1,2).


Thirdly, this publicity stunt is custom-made to chime with other aspects of US culture. You can tick the box for the favourite issue of the day, the environment. “By planting trees in Israel”, the JNF reminds us, “you have helped curb global warming”. The Israeli embassy goes one step further, suggesting Israel’s entire history as a state has been to the environmental advantage of mankind: “Israel’s forestation efforts help the entire region. Far from greening Israel alone, the hundreds of millions of trees planted in Israel over the past century have provided environmental benefits that know no borders.” (5)


The JNF’s work in cultivation, forestation and other ways of “preserving and developing the land of Israel” strikes a chord with the north American mythologized history of the frontier and the Wild West. On their website, the JNF proudly states that its “singular task” has been the “reclaiming of the Land of Israel”. In this respect, Zionists are repeating the north American colonial project, which previously reclaimed the frontier-land from the native Americans. The JNF describes its role as “supporting Israel’s newest generation of pioneers in developing the Negev Desert, Israel’s last frontier” (6).


Less than a fortnight after the Coretta forest announcement, an illustration of the real nature of the policies the JNF is implementing was reported in Haaretz (7). The demolition of a Bedouin village in the Negev left 100 people homeless, an all too common event. The Israel Land Administration (ILA) described the event as the evacuation of “invaders”. Welcome to life on Israel’s new frontier where, as soon as the Arabs are cleansed, the JNF is ready to move in to make the desert bloom once again.


Despite the JNF’s public image, the organisation has played a key role in Israel’s appropriation of lands belonging to Palestinians, both in the major expulsions of 1948, as well as the piecemeal ethnic cleansing that has continued ever since. The official line hints at the truth: the organisation defines its modus operandi as being “to serve as caretaker of the land of Israel, on behalf of its owners – Jewish people
everywhere”. Thus the Middle East’s ‘only democracy’ is not, in fact, a state for all its citizens (i.e. native Palestinians), but is ‘owned’ by Jews worldwide, a claim contested by both Jews angry at the presumption, as well as the Palestinians whose land has been stolen.


On the rubble of Palestinian villages, the JNF planted forests; on the remains of village schools, picnic parks sprung up. Maps were redrawn, Arab place names erased, and soon, all that remained were piles of stones, the fragments of structures, and the memories of the exiled. Uri Avnery describes what happened in the years following Israel’s creation: “[The] new state transferred to the KKL millions of dunams of land expropriated from Arabs – the refugees who were not allowed to return (‘absentees’ in legal language), those who had remained in the country but were absent on a given day from their villages (‘present absentees’), as well as Arabs who became citizens of Israel.” (8)


Avnery notes that the JNF’s statutes “explicitly prohibit the sale or rental of land to non-Jews”, meaning that a Palestinian in Israel “whose forefathers have lived here for hundreds – or even thousands – of years, cannot acquire a house or an apartment on its land”, in contrast to a Jewish New Yorker who decides to emigrate.


Uri Davis also explains the disparity between the JNF’s public face, and the reality of
their operations: “[The JNF] projects itself as an environmentally friendly organization concerned with ecology and sustainable development. It plants forests and establishes recreation facilities open to all. Well, it is the case that JNF forests and facilities are open to all, but it is equally the case that that most – almost without exception all – of these forests are planted on the ruins of Palestinian Arab villages ethnically cleansed in the 1948-49 war.” (9)

One example of these forests is Biriya in northern Galilee, planted on the ruins of ethnically cleansed Palestinian villages. And it is here, within Biriya Forest, that Israel will pay homage to Coretta Scott King. What better example, not only of the Palestinian Nakbah, but also the extent to which Zionist propagandists will not only deny the ethnic cleansing, but also repackage colonialism as the victory of the
colonised.

(This chapter is based on an article originally published in Electronic Intifada on 15 May 2007.)
_______________________
(1) http://www.jnf.org/about-jnf/news/press-releases/2007/pr_israeli-forest-to-be-
planted.html
(2) “Israel to name Galilee forest after Martin Luther King Jr’s widow”, Haaretz, 27 April
2007 (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/852791.html)
(3) Joseph Massad, The Persistence of the Palestinian Question: Essays on Zionism
and the Palestinians, Routledge: New York, 2006
(4) “Many Americans Uneasy with Mix of Religion and Politics”, Pew Forum Survey, 24
Aug 2006 (http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=153)
(5) http://www.israelemb.org/articles/2007/April/2007042600.htm
(6) http://support.jnf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=PR_Article_Cleveland
(7) Mijal Grinberg, “30 structures in unrecognized Bedouin village in Negev
demolished”, Haaretz, 8 May 2007
(8) Uri Avnery, “Abolish the JNF”, ZNet, 21 April 2007
(http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/1535)
(9) Uri Davis, Apartheid Israel: Possibilities for the Struggle Within, Zed Books: London,
200

The JNF – the Principal Zionist Tool for the Colonization of Palestine.  By Ilan Pappe

The Jewish National Fund was established in 1901 and was the principal tool for the Zionist colonization of Palestine. It was an agency with which the Zionist movement bought land and profited from transactions of the land purchased (1). It was inaugurated by the fifth Zionist Congress and remained throughout the Mandatory years, 1918-1948, the spearhead of the Zionisation of Palestine.

From the onset of its activities, it was destined to, and officially granted with the task of, becoming the custodian of the land in Palestine in the name of the Jewish people. It has not ceased to fulfil this role after the creation of the state of Israel, but with time other missions were added to this primordial task.

It is crucial to go back to its history and review it if one wishes to understand its present role. This is particularly important due to the image of the JNF today as a ‘green’ and ecological organization that safeguards Israel’s natural landscape from being ruined by all the usual suspects – greedy contractors, government greediness and public indifference.

In practice, its ‘enemies’ are Palestinian farmers and Bedouins who try to keep the little piece of the land they still have. Their remaining land is ostensibly needed as ‘nature reserves’, but in practice will be given to Jewish settlers. From 1901 to 2010 the JNF did not change its tactics, nor did it deviate from its role as the principal Judaizer of Israel/Palestine.

The JNF of Yosef Weitz

Let us then review its past activities. Most of the JNF’s activities during the mandatory period, and circa the Nakbah, were associated with one person, the head of the settlement section of the JNF and the quintessential Zionist colonialist, Yosef Weitz. In 1940 he declared that the only solution for the conflict in Palestine “will be the transfer of the Palestinians out of Palestine” (2).


His focus during that time was to facilitate the eviction of Palestinian tenants from land owned by absent landlords who sold it to the Jewish Agency and community. The purchase of land did not automatically end with the removal of tenants. Weitz personally, or with the help of his closest aides, would appear on the newly purchased land and encourage the new Jewish owners to throw out the tenants, even if there was no use for all the land bought.

 

One of his officials reported to him that unfortunately the tenants refused to leave and some Jewish owners were displaying cowardice and hesitation, allowing tenants to stay. This aide and others made sure that such weaknesses would not persist and ensured that evictions were comprehensive and effective.


Even after all the Zionist efforts to expand settlement on the land, the impact of such activities was limited because of Palestinian resistance and British restrictions; by the end of the Mandate, all in all, the Jewish community owned less than 7% of the land. Towards the end of the Mandatory period Weitz shifted his interest and energy to a new project: contemplating the takeover of land and property as part of an overall scheme to uproot the local population in a prospective final showdown between the Jewish community and the indigenous population in Palestine.


Weitz was pencilling every location and village for future use. It is reminiscent of the British colonial geographical effort to list every village in India under the dominion. In his Culture and Imperialism, Edward Said dealt with this obsession when analysing Kipling’s Kim. In the novel’s climactic last paragraphs Kim, the white boy in the heart of India, belongs to a continent that was surveyed by Colonel Creighton’s Indian Survey “in which every camp and village is duly noted”. Kipling, however, notes that the Lama’s encyclopaedia also includes such a survey, but the British need their own almanac. Said cynically commented that this obsession testifies to “the positivistic inventory of places and peoples within the scope of British dominion” (3).


Said highlights how controlling a space and detailing its features and location are part of a takeover that includes actual power and control. The extra edge of Zionist colonialism lies in the apparent difference between British colonialism – wishing to register for the sake of control – and the Zionist one, wishing to register for the sake of dispossession. This is the result of the admixture of nationalism and colonialism
that makes Zionism such a unique case of an invasive foreign body on an indigenous land.


Weitz stepped up his efforts when the British announced their intention to leave Palestine in February 1947 and when it became clear that the UN endeavours to solve the problem were to lead nowhere and produced a golden opportunity for the Zionist movement to take over as much of Palestine as it desired, Weitz demanded a systematic approach to the whole issue of expulsion and takeover. His most entrusted colleague in those days was another JNF official, Yosef Nachmani, a kind of kindred spirit, who shared his dismay in what they both saw as sloppy treatment of the issue by the Jewish leadership. Weitz wrote to Nachmani that the overall takeover of Arab land was a ‘sacred duty’. Nachmani concurred and added that a kind of Jihad (he used the term ‘milhemet Kibush’ – a war of occupation) was required, and yet the Jewish leadership failed to see its necessity. Nachmani, a kind of alter-ego for Weitz, wrote that the “current leadership is characterized by impotent and weak people” (4).


Weitz was also disappointed by the leadership’s inability to rise to the historical occasion. The leadership could not heed to these ambitious plans to commence takeover, mainly through purchase and sporadic takeover, for fear of the British reaction. Although the British were in the process of eviction ever since February 1947, they nonetheless rejected any actions on a large scale – from both sides of the conflict. In the eyes of the government in London, the massive sale of land to the Jews, or alternatively, the systematic takeover of land by force, had the potential of risking the pullout of the Mandatory troops and officials. Weitz doubted the seriousness of this decision had it been put to the test, but Ben-Gurion was willing to wait to the end of the Mandate, before launching more systematic operations of dispossession.

In January 1948 there was some consolation for Weitz when he was unofficially appointed as the head of operations to evict Palestinians by force and he felt elated when, on 10 Mar 1948, the Jewish leadership adopted Plan Dalet, a blueprint for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Officially, he remained the head of the land department within the JNF.The two appointments fused into one, once Plan Dalet was enacted. This master plan was a blueprint for the takeover of all the Palestinian villages and urban neighbourhoods that were within, what the Jewish leadership regarded, as future Israel. It amounted to 78% of Mandatory Palestine and included 600,000 Jews and 1,000,000 Palestinians in hundreds of villages and dozens of towns. Weitz was following closely every takeover in rural areas, either personally or through loyal officials such as Nachmani. While the army was responsible for the eviction of people and the demolition of houses, Weitz tried to pass the villages into JNF custody.

The pillaging JNF


After the end of the 1948 war, the JNF had to compete for the role of principal divider of the spoils of the loot. In the final analysis it was a success story, but it took time. All in all 3.5 million dunams were taken by Israel in rural Palestine: houses and fields of destroyed villages are included in this estimate from 1948. It took a long time until a clear centralized policy of how best to use this land was formulated. Ben-Gurion avoided a total takeover by private or public Jewish agencies, for as long as the UN discussed the fate of the refugees, first in Lausanne in 1949 and later on in futile committees that were established to deal with the issue of refugeehood. In the wake of the UN General Assembly’s resolution, on 11 Dec 1948, which called for the unconditional repatriation of the refugees, formal and legal takeovers were seen as
problematic in the eyes of the government.


So, first the lands were put under the authority of a governmental ‘Custodian of Absentee Property’, pending decision. But typical to what was regarded ‘pragmatism’ of the Ben-Gurion years, the Custodian was allowed to sell land on behalf of the government (namely each decision of his had to be backed by the government). So, a million dunams out of the 3.5 were sold directly to the JNF for a bargain price in
December 1948. Another quarter of a million were passed to the JNF in 1949. The limited budget of the JNF allowed other greedy agencies, such as the three kibbutzim movements, the moshavim movement and private real estate dealers to take a big share of the land as well. The army held on to a portion of land as training grounds and camps. In 2005 a survey in Haaretz estimated that half of the destroyed
villages became JNF territory (5).


The complex set-up was further complicated in 1960: the government and the JNF signed a charter for the creation of the Israeli Land Authority. It allocated all the forests to the JNF and all the land – most of which originally belonged to the destroyed villages – to the new ILA. The ILA became the owner of 93% of the land, out of which only 13% was directly owned by the JNF (whereas until 1960 it directly owned half of these lands). But in order to ensure that the ILA would not sell land to Palestinians, half of the members of the ILA directorship were JNF people, mandated to safeguard the land for the Jewish people for eternity. The JNF was even more powerful in this new arrangement: 13% of the land was geographically in areas that were needed for Palestinian villages and towns to develop. Before that could be done, Weitz used the JNF money to destroy evicted villages, flattening them, before deciding which area would become a Jewish settlement and which a forest (6). And so he reported to the government:
“We have begun the operation of cleansing, removing the debris and preparing the villages for cultivation and settlement. Some of these would become parks.” (7)


Visiting one of these villages Weitz boasted that the sight of tractors destroying villages did not move him. This takeover mission was from the onset described as something very different: it was depicted as an ecological assignment, for example, to keep the country green. Thus, a principal means of Judaizing former Palestinian villages was either through resettlement of Jews or through forestation.


Forestation was not the first choice. The whole selection was done through ad-hoc decisions rather than a strategy. First there were the cultivated lands that could be immediately harvested, as the land was fertile and thus accorded to new Jewish settlements. The JNF could not stand the competition with the greedy kibbutzim movements, especially the socialist one, Hashomer Hatzair. They cultivated the lands of the villages even before they were permitted to take it over, and then on the basis of a contracted cultivation demanded possession. As a rule, the feeling in the government was that, first, land had to be allocated to existing Jewish settlements, then for the building of new ones and only as a last priority for forestation.


In 1950, the Absentee Property Law was passed in the Knesset and so the Custodian had introduced more order, which ‘benefited’ the ‘ecologically minded’ members of the JNF who were promised a greater share for forestation. But the criterion was still land that could not be cultivated (8).


The ravaging of the land


The decision on what to plant was in the hands of the JNF, but also the Ministry of Agriculture had its own forestation section. The decision was to plant pine and cypress trees instead of the natural flora. In part this was an attempt to Europeanize the scenery, although this does not appear as a goal in any documented way, and partly, and this was overly stated, these trees were to be used by the wood industry in generations to come. With time, the special section in the Agriculture Ministry was abolished and the forests planted on lands confiscated from Palestinians in the 1960s were exclusively the production of the JNF (9).

The JNF was also involved in the establishment of new settlements; its officials were the ones who coordinated the naming operation. This mission was accomplished with the help of archaeologists and bible experts who volunteered to be members of a Naming Committee in order to Hebrewize the Palestinian geography. The committee was established in July 1949. Some of the Palestinian villages were probably built on the ruins of early and even ancient civilizations, including the Hebrew one. This was a limited phenomenon and apart from obvious cases such as Zipori (that became Saffuriya) and villages around Safad, it dated back to such hazy ancient times that there was no time to properly establish it – in any case the motive for Judaizing the evicted villages was ideological and not scholarly. The narrative
accompanying this expropriation was very simple: “Throughout the years of foreign occupation of Eretz Israel, the original Hebrew names were erased or garbled, and sometimes took on an alien form.” (10)


Indeed, the desire was to reproduce the ancient map of Israel that in essence was a systematic, political and military attempt to de-Arabize the terrain, the names, the geography and above all the history. The naming committee was in fact an old outfit already in place in 1920 when it acted as an ad hoc group of scholars that granted Hebrew names to lands and places purchased through sale, and continued to do it
for lands and places taken by force during the Nakbah. When it was officially convened by Ben-Gurion in July 1949 it was established as a sub-division within the JNF.


In the early 1960s, before the final division of land between the ILA and the JNF, the latter launched operation ‘Finally’ (Sof-Sof in Hebrew), which meant to dispossess Palestinians of further land in the Galilee that was still in the villagers’ hands. They were willing to buy land or exchange it with lesser land. But villagers refused in one of the heroic struggles for Summud that is not mentioned anywhere. Summud in Arabic is steadfastness and it became a term describing the Palestinian national struggle – the ability to remain on one’s own land despite the Israeli policies of dispossession. The struggle included, especially later on in the 1970s, a Palestinian initiative of planting olive trees in a challenge to the Israeli policy (of plantation) aiming to Europeanize Palestine (11).


But they relented when the JNF built special military posts on entrances to the ‘stubborn’ village, exerting psychological pressure on the villagers. It achieved its goal, but only in some cases. Arnon Sofer, a professor of Geography from Haifa University, commented on these actions:


“We were murderous, but it was not malice for the sake of malice. We acted out of a sense of being exposed to an existential threat. And there were objective reasons for this emotion. We were convinced that without Jewish territorial continuity – especially along the national water carrier (running from
the Lake of Galilee to the south) the Arabs would poison the water.”


The absence of any fences or guarding posts, at any given moment in time, raises doubts about the sincerity of this concern. The need for ‘territorial continuity’ on the other hand was the main excuse used in 1948 for massive operations of expulsions.


The latter task of forestation was achieved through the planting of European trees on the ruins and lands of the villages. Indeed keeping the country Jewish and green became one and the same. Overall, throughout the country, the forest includes 11% of the indigenous trees and only 10% of the forests are from before 1948 (12).


The most illustrative case is in the over-planting of pine trees instead of olive groves. In the new development town of Migdal Ha-Emek, the JNF was doing its best to cover the ruins of the village Malul on the eastern entrance to the place with rows of pine trees (not a proper forest but just a small wood). Such ‘lungs’ can be found in many of the development towns that cover destroyed villages (Tirat Hacarmel over Tira, Qiryat Shmoneh over Khalsa, and Ashkelon over Majdal). This particular breed
failed to adapt to the local soil and after recurring treatment the illness infected the trees once more. When I visited the place in 2004 with relatives of the original population some of the pine tree were literally split and broken forth. In the middle of these trees, olive trees popped out in defiance of the alien flora that was planted above them 56 years ago.


The JNF, as mentioned before, was busy confiscating land in the 1950s and the 1960s, but it did not end there. It owned land in the Greater Jerusalem area, which it received from the Custodian of absentee lands after the 1967 war. In the early 1980s, the land was passed by the JNF to Elad, the settlers’ NGO that is devoted to the Judaization of east Jerusalem. The NGO focused on Silwan and declared openly that its goal was to cleanse that village from its inhabitants. This operation has recently been extended to include other neighbourhoods such as Al-Sheikh Jarrah.


The 2010 JNF


So today the JNF directly owns 13% of the land, but has through its membership in the ILA controls over 93% of the land. Privatization initiatives by Benjamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon began to diminish this control – but not significantly, so far at least. The leaders of any Likkud government will always be torn between Zionism and capitalism and time will tell how much will remain in the hands of the JNF in the future. What will not change is the fact that beneath half of Israel’s forests lay the ruins of Palestinian villages.


What does this history tell us? First that the ‘green lungs’ of Israel have been created as part of the colonization of the country and the dispossession of the Palestinian people – and not out of care for ecology and nature. Yet this is not its image abroad, let alone in Israel itself. From this perspective the JNF is the organization that planted throughout the years forests, reconstructed local flora and paved the ways to scores of resorts and nature parks endowed with picnic facilities and children’s playgrounds.


But it is time to tell the truth about the green lungs that were created and are now kept preciously by the JNF. The lungs consist not only of picnic areas, playgrounds, parking lots and natural scenery, but also of visible items that tell a history – a ruined house, a fortress or an orchard.


These recreational sites are not so much commemorators of history as much as they are erasers of it. They are deniers of a local history; this is an intentional act of erasure not as part of a need to tell a different story in its own right, but in order to obscure the Palestinian villages that existed where now the green lungs prevail. Beneath the swings, the picnic tables and European forestry lay the houses of the
Palestinians who were cleansed in the 1948 Catastrophe by the Israeli army.


As long as this mechanism of denial and erasure continues, simple political agreements and military arrangements will not be enough as bricks in any significant edifice of reconciliation. Any book on the Jewish National Fund drives one clear message home: without acknowledgment of the crimes of the past and without unmaking the lies of the present there is very little hope for peace in Israel and Palestine.

Hopefully this book contributes further to this sacred mission for the benefit of Jews and Palestinians alike.

Footnotes:

1. Yossi Katz, The “Business” of Settlement; Private Entrepreneurship in the Jewish
Settlement of Palestine, 1900-1914, Magnes Press: Hebrew University, Jerusalem,
1994, p126
2. Yosef Weitz, 20 Dec 1940, My Diary, Vol 2, p181 (manuscript in Central Zionist
Archive, A246)
3. Edward Said, Orientalism, Vintage Books: London & New York, 1979, p172
4. Benny Morris, Tikkun Taut, Am Oved: Tel Aviv, 2000, p62, notes 12-15
5. Note: See Haaretz, 4 and 11 Feb 2005.
6. Yosef Weitz, 30 May 1948, My Diary, Vol 3, p294
7. David Ben-Gurion, 5 June 1948, War Diary, Vol 2, p487
8. Benny Morris, Tikkun Taut, Am Oved: Tel Aviv, 2000, pp236-8
9. Note: Dr Michal Oren was quoted in Haaretz, 4 Feb 2005.
10. Meron Benvensiti, Sacred Landscape: the Buried History of the Holy Land since
1948, California University Press: Berkeley, 2000, p25
11. Note: The Israeli Supreme Court began, and continues today, to deliberate over
litigation against the policy of plantation, submitted by the NGO Adam, Teva va Din
(Man, Nature and Justice) on 29 Aug 2001.
12. http://www.kkl.org.il

Zionism’s tactical changes – taking the long view.

It seems the case to some observers that the Israeli state has increasing recourse to naked violence in seizing Palestinian land either via settlers with the support of the Israeli military or utilising the military itself through declaring areas as required for its Firing Zones or for what are called “security reasons.” To what extent is this overt and  unashamed violence a new development?

We’ve grown used to the claims of the JNF that it’s taking over of Palestinian land is to regenerate the land by  planting trees or building reservoirs in desert areas. The JNF was for many decades the public face of Zionist colonisation, but it was never the whole story as an article by Professor Zachary Lockman of New York University written as long ago as 2012 makes clear.  He argued that the apparently more ‘pacific’ nature of Labour Zionism and the JNF – seizing land and control of the labour market by economic means – was essentially just the result of a tactical decision, forced on it in the period when the Zionists did not control state power in ways they did later.  Once they had that control, the violence implicit in the essential project could be unleashed (though they still had to consider international pressures.)

Today, there remains for the Zionist state, notwithstanding that it now has a monopoly of state violence, the problem of maintaining control over the land mass that they covet. For this they want the Jewish population to spread out more widely and break up Palestinian population concentrations. (See Allegra and Maggor, Political Geography 2022.)

As alluded to above, one method of doing this – and an area of JNF activity over the years – is the confiscation of Palestinian land for national parks, forests, and so on at the same time as the army has “needed” firing ranges where Palestinians happen to be living or raising their animals, but the other major method it seems, is by housing development or what the two academics call “metropolitanization”.  While the JNF’s land seizures continue to be presented in Israeli propaganda as limited to agricultural and environmental development, some of the land under its control and its environmental projects are used for the Israeli state’s housing development schemes on Palestinian land. JNF publicity boasts of creating “open public spaces and gardens for urbanites to improve their quality of life and well-being.”

A major form of Jewish colonisation of the West Bank, in terms of population transfer, has been by the expansion of settlements serving as suburbs mainly for Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem. This is a bonanza for private developers in neoliberal Israel but also draws a wide section of the Israeli population into supporting further colonisation by making available cheaper housing to them (subsidised by the state).

So, it’s not just a few Zionist fanatics who are driving this process – claiming ownership of certain archaeological sites or asserting fundamentalist readings of their holy texts as justification for throwing Palestinians out of their homes or attacking Palestinian farmers, chasing off their animals and destroying their crops. Different social groups are being coaxed into acting as state operatives, consciously or unconsciously, in the new housing developments.

What this has meant is that kindly-disposed, liberal Israelis, who are apparently merely seeking a family home that they can afford, have been given a vested interest in the ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the state apparatus, whether in post-48 Israel or the West Bank.

Might this be another reason why each Israeli government is more right-wing than the last and the armed forces of the state are increasingly brutal in a whole range of circumstances where Palestinians are concerned?

   

 

The New Government: a Radical Departure or the More Honest Face of Zionism?

Supporters of the Palestine cause will have noticed that Benyamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud Party (“Consolidation” in English) recently began his sixth term in office as the Prime Minister of Israel. Nothing new there then!

However, the response of many commentators to its formation in December 2022, both inside and especially outside Israel, has not indicated that this is simply “business as usual”,

The new government has been commonly described as the most right-wing and religiously conservative in the history of the state. What has made commentators, including several of its most prominent supporters, catch their breath and issue words of warning? Who’s new in the apartheid firmament, capable of unsettling apologists who have witnessed what we have all seen over many decades?

Because it’s a coalition, several of the members of the Government are themselves leaders of smaller political parties and they have been given portfolios in exchange for their support by the Likud leader.

  • Itamar Ben Gvir (National Security and Police) is leader of “Otzma Yehudit” – Jewish Power in English.
  • Bezalel Smotrich (Finance and Settlement Development) is leader of National Union-Tkuma – Religious Zionist Party – lives in Kedumim, an illegal settlement and has described himself as a “fascist homophobe.”
  • Avi Maoz (Education) of the Noam Party – English “Pleasantness” – has as the main plank of policy the restoration of family values and hostility to LGBT rights.
  • Aryeh Deri (Interior and Health, then, possibly in two years, Finance) currently Head of the Shas Party (“Sephardic Guardians”) which represents the Haredi religious population advocating a return to orthodox Jewish lifestyles.

However, it can be argued that one “virtue” of the new brutal face of the regime is that its position is being made crystal clear. That’s a problem for those who make common cause with Israel.  Since one of the myths about the Israeli state that is bandied about by its supporters is that it is a member of the western family of democracies, just like us in the enlightened and progressive Free World, it doesn’t take much imagination to see why the composition of such a government presents a problem to its apologists. How can we airbrush the likes of Ben Givir and Smotrich out of our cosy picture of the only democracy in the Middle East?

Gideon Levy, perhaps alone of Israeli journalists, had a different take on this new government: “…one cannot help but ask: is the threatened change really such a radical one? …Consider the 166 Palestinians, including at least 39 children, who died by acts of the Israeli military and settlers in the West Bank and Jerusalem since the beginning of this year (written December 2022)…Were they killed under the terrifying new government?…The new government will force the West to look at Israel and admit, at least to itself: this is an apartheid state. Continuing the masquerade ball with Israel will become untenable.”

We, in Stop the JNF, will do our best to contribute to that end.