The Jewish National Fund

Walter Lehn

Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 3, No. 4. (Summer, 1974), pp. 74-96.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0377-919X%28197422%293%3A4%3C74%3ATJNF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F

Journal of Palestine Studies is currently published by University of California Press.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/ucal.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. Formore information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.orgSun May 13 06:04:27 2007

THE JEWISH NATIONAL FUND

WALTER LEHN *

In the voluminous literature on Zionist colonization of Palestine, and the consequent and continuing conflicts, one rarely finds more than a passing reference to the role of the Jewish National Fund (JNF).l Yet by May 1948, next to the government, the JNF was the largest landowner in P a l e ~ t i n e , ~

* Walter Lehn is Professor of Linguistics at the University of Minnesota, and has been Director of the Middle East Center at the University of Texas at Austin (1960-66).

A shorter version of this paper was presented at the Sixth Annual Convention of the Association of Arab-American University Graduates in Washington, DC in October 1973 and is appearing in the proceedings, Settler Regimes in Africa and the Arab World: The Illusion of Endurance, edited by Ibrahim Abu Lughod.

For providing information not otherwise readily available, I am grateful to the New York and the Jerusalem offices of the JNF. The Jerusalem office was particularly helpful in providing copies of documents in its archives and details of land purchases made annually from 1905-1948. Unless otherwise indicated, all figuresrelating to purchases and ownership are taken from this source (hereafter JNF-Jerusalem) and are used because they agree sub- stantially with those given elsewhere, e.g., two publications by the Government of Palestine, Village Statistics 1945: A ClassiJication of Land and Area Ownership in Palestine (Jerusalem, 1946), reprinted with explanatory notes by Sami Hadawi (Official Land Valuer and Inspector of Tax Assessments, Government of Palestine, 1935-1948), Beirut: PLO Research Centre 1970; and A Survey of Palestine Prepared for the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, 3 vols. (Jerusalem, 1946), and a Supplement (prepared for UNSCOP), (Jerusalem, 1947) ;also United Nations Official Records of the Second Session of the General Assembly, Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question, 1947. Useful interpretive studies are Sami Hadawi, Palestine: Loss of a Heritage (San Antonio: Naylor, 1963) and John Ruedy, "Dynamics of Land Alienation," in Ibrahim Abu Lughod (editor), The Transformation of Palestine :Essays on the Origin and Devel- opment of the Arab-I~raeli ConJEict (Evanston: Northwestern, 1971), pp. 119-38.

O n May 14, 1948, the JNF held 936,000 dunums; Efraim Orni, Agrarian Reform and Social Progress in Israel (Jerusalem, 1972), p. 62. A. Granott, Agrarian Reform and the Record of Israel (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1956), p. 28, gives total Jewish ownership at the end of 1947 as 1,734,000 dunums; of this 933,000 were held by the JNF and the balance by other, including private, owners. The 1,734,000 figure (somewhat higher than mandate government figures) is not impressive if we note that even this represented only 6.59 per cent of mandated Palestine's total land area of 26,323,000 dunums (exclusive of Transjordan). Granott generally rounds figures to the closest 1,000, a practice observed in this paper also.

No attempt is here made to cope with the herculean task of reconciling varying figures on landownership given in different sources. Most writers simply do not give specific enough information to make this possible; e.g., different figures for land owned in a given year may simply reflect the fact that one source used January and the other December as the basis of counting for the year. A further source of uncertainty is the calendar used, the Jewish or

THE JEWISH NATIONAL FUND 75

holding title to 54 per cent of Jewish-owned land on which 85 per cent of the Jewish settlements or establishments were located. I t was thus clearly one of the major instruments of Zionist policy in bringing about the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. In the light of this fact, the absence of critical studies of the JNF is surprising. This paper -a survey of the development and of the land policies of the JNF -is a contribution toward filling this lacuna.

DEVELOPMENTOF THE JNF

The creation of a Jewish fund to acquire land and expand colonization was initially proposed by Hermann Schapira3 at the First Zionist Congress a t Basle in August 1897. Although a number of delegates repeatedly tried to bring the proposal to the floor for action, it met with the opposition - at least at that time4 -of Theodor Herzl, who was supporting another Zionist economic project. This was for the organization of a Jewish bank, one of the two executive agencies that his own pamplet, Der Judenstaat, had envisioned

the Gregorian; e.g., does 1905 mean the Gregorian year 1905 or is it a rough equivalent for the Jewish year 5665 (1904-1905) ? Finally is the unit of measuremeht the Turkish dunum (919.3 sq. metres) or the metric dunum (1,000 sq. metres = .2471 acres) or acres? Equivalents among these are frequently only approximate, and some sources seem to be unaware that the dunum used in Palestine in the Ottoman period was not the same as that used during the man- date period. Unless otherwise stated, all figures in this paper are in metric dunums.

Zvi Hirsch (later Hermann) Schapira was a rabbi, a professor of mathematics, and, to support himself, a bookkeeper and a watchmaker. H e was born in Lithuania in 1840, educated in Prussia and Germany, and died in 1898. H e was closely associated with the Hibbat Zion, "Lwe of Zion," groups and was an early advocate of the revival and use of Hebrew and of Jewish settlement in Palestine. As early as 1882 he proposed the establishment of a Jewish university in Palestine and in 1884 a fund to "redeem" the land of Palestine. This redemption could be effected only by Jews owning, living on, and cultivating the land. Like others of the Love of Zion groups, Schapira was opposed to Herzl's political Zionism and went to the First Congress intending to oppose his views. Israel M. Biderman, Hermann Schapira: Father of the JNF, vol. 11, Zionist Personalities Series (New York: Jewish National Fund, 1962); Maximilian Hurwitz, "The Father of the National Fund: A Biographical Sketch of Hermann Schapira," and "The Jewish National Fund: Its Origin, Object, History and Achievements," in Eretz Israel: Jubilee Volume of the Jewish National Fund (New York, 1932), pp. 24-43; Ra- phael Patai (editor), Encyclopedia of Zionism and Israel (New York: McGraw Hill, 1971), (hereafter E.Z.I.), p. 620. S.V. Schapira, Hermann (Zvi), and Jewish National Fund.

This impression is based on Herzl's actions a t the Congress and the fact that his account of it makes no mention of Schapira's address or the fund proposal; Raphael Patai (editor), The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl (New York: Herzl Press and Thomas Yoseloff, 1960), pp. 574-97. At the same time, since Herzl had nine months earlier recorded in his diary the need for a national fund "started through collections, donations, etc. ... to make us inde-pendent of the big bankers," he was probably opposed not to the substance but to the timing of Schapira's proposal; see entries of November 8, 1896, Diaries, pp. 493-94.

In his pamphlet, Herzl foresaw the need for a "Society ofJewso and a "Jewish Compa-ny," the former realized as the World Zionist Organization (WZO) and the latter as the Jewish Colonial Trust, Ltd. An English translation of Der Judenstaat is in Arthur Hertzberg

as necessary to effect the eventual establishment of a Jewish statc. Herzl wanted the bank proposal to be accepted in principle, the details then to be developed by the Actions Committee (AC; later called the Zionist Executive) and presented to a following Congress for action. He believed that a Jewish fund such as that proposed by Schapira would not only weaken the bank proposal, but would misdirect resources to the existing, but small and struggling colonies of the Love of Zion groups in Palestine. In Herzl's view these were wasteful, and doomed to failure so long as they lacked legal safeguards and recognition by the Ottoman authorities, which he considered indispensable prerequisites for a sound Jewish colonization project.

Herzl hoped to avoid a vote on Schapira's proposal (at least until the bank had been organized) but despite his skill in parliamentarian tactics, he was manoeuvred into a position of being unable to stall action any longer, and at the afternoon session of the last day of the Congress, Schapira was called upon to explain his suggestion.

In his very brief address, Schapira noted that there was insufficient time left to deal with his proposal and expressed his willingness to have the AC study it and to present a more detailed plan for action at the next Congress. He enunciated what he regarded as three basic principles, emphasizing that he would be unwilling to depart from them: First, "that apart from the other fund [the bank proposal] a territorial fund shall be created. Second, so that this territorial fund cannot later be used for other purposes, that restrictions to this end be included in the articles of association. Thirdly the fund should never be exhausteden6

< < Let us suppose," Schapira said,7 "that our ancestors during their migra- tion into exile had placed a sum of money, however small, in trust for future times; we would today be able to acquire large territories with it. What our progenitors partly could not do, and partly neglected to do, that we are obligated to do for ourselves and our descendants." Accordingly he proposed that funds be collected "from all Jews of the world" to establish a "general Jewish fund"; none of this was to be spent until a "minimum of ten million pounds sterling" had been accumulated; then two-thirds were to be designat- ed as "territorial funds" and could be used only to acquire "Jewish territory."

(editor), The Zionist Idea: A Historical Analysis and Header (New York: Doubleday, 1959), pp. 204-26.

Translated from the proceedings: Stenographisches Protokoll der Verhandlungen des I. Zionisten-Congresses, Basel, 29. bis 31. August 1897 (Vienna, 1897), p. 166.

7 The written proposal, from which the following quotations are translated, appears oh. &., pp. 166-67, as a footnote to his address.

THE JEWISH NATIONAL FUND 77

The remaining third was to be used for the "preservation and cultivation of this territory" as well as for other "equally important general Jewish pbr-poses." The acquired territory was to be "inalienable" and "could not be sold even to individual Jews"; it "could only be leased" and only for periods "not exceeding 49 years." While the model for these restrictions on ownership and leasing was undoubtedly biblical (cf. Leviticus 25), the objectives were clearly national and political. Schapira further stipulated that the fund was to be under the control of the Zionist Congres~ .~ is not Although Palestine named in his proposal, there is no question that both he and the other dele- gates understood that this was the territory to be acquired and to be made inalienably Jewish.

Following Schapira's address, the only action taken by the Congress was adoption of the following resolution: "The assembly declares that in principle it regards as essential the creation of a national fund and the es- tablishment of a Jewish bank, and that to this end the Actions Committee to be elected present to the next Congress a carefully prepared plan."s Schapira died eight months after the First Congress and did not live to see the fund come into being.

In spite of this resolution, in the end Herzl bad his way. The Second Zionist Congress (Basle, August 1898) approved a recommendation to organize the bank, incorporated in 1899 in England as the Jewish Colonial Trust Limited (of which a subsidiary called the Anglo-Palestine Company, subsequently the Anglo-Palestine Bank, was established in Jaffa in 1903). No action was taken on the national fund. At the Fourth Zionist Congress (London, August 1900), however, creation of the fund was again approved "in principle" and the AC was again instructed to prepare a detailed plan for adoption at the following Congress.

Finally at the Fifth Zionist Congress (Basle, December 1901), a proposal prepared by Johann Kremenezky10 on behalf of the AC was presented for action, this time with the support of Herzl. At the morning session on Decem- ber 29,ll under the chairmanship of Yehiel Tschlenow,12 after some four

T h e other provisions i n Schapira's proposal appear less significant; in any case, they were not included in the J N F as eventually set u p and hence need not concern us here.

9 00. cit., p. 167. ' 0 Also spelled Kremenetzky; E.Z.I., p. 688. l1 For the text o f Kremenezky's proposal, and the following debate, see Stenographisches

Protokoll der Verhandlungen des V. Zionisten-Congresses in Basel, 26. bis 30. December 1901 (Vienna, 1901), pp. 265-302.

'2 E.Z.I., pp. 1136-37.

hours of at times heated and even acrimonious debate, a motion was adopted by a small majority to cut off debate, to accept the AC's proposal '"revision-ally," and to elect a committee to prepare the articles of association for the fund for adoption at the next Congress. l T h e legality of this vote was imme- diately challenged. At this point in the proceedings, Herzl returned to the meeting room, threatened to withdraw the proposal if it was modified in ally way or adopted provisionally, and asked that the debate be continued. The chairman then called for a vote on a separate motion to cut off debate, and this was defeated. Herzl then took the chair and again threatened to withdraw the proposal unless it was adopted as proposed. Although some delegates complained about Herzl's highhandedness, the debate continued for another hour after which the proposal, slightly amended, was adopted by 105 to 82, and the JNF was voted into existence as "a trust for the Jewish people, which ... can be used exclusively for the purchase of land in Palestine and Syria."14

l3 Among the substantive objections to the proposal, the following appear to be the most significant: The funds should be used for Jewish purposes anywhere, not just for the purchase of land in Palestine; the fund-raising methods (sale of JNF stampes and donations) were at- tacked as unrealistic and unlikely to yield sufficiently large sums; "the Jewish people" was not an entity recognized in law, therefore the ownership of the fund and of lands purchased would be open to legal challenge. Since the phrase "the Jewish people" eventually became well established in the jargon of Zionism, it is interesting to note the misgivings concerning it expressed by Zionists a t this Congress.

l4 Translated from Kremenezky's proposal, op. cit., p. 266. The original reads: "Der Jiidische Nationalfonds sol1 ein unantastbares Vermogen des jiidischen Volkes sein, das erst in dem Zeitpunkte, wo eine vom Congresse zu bestimmende Hohe erzielt worden ist (etwa 200.000 Pf. St.), ausschliesslich nur zum Landkaufe in Palastina und Syrien verwendet werden darf."

The Hebrew name of the'JNF is qeren qayemet layisra'el, "Perpetual Fund for Israel," popularly transliterated Keren Kayemet L'Yisrael, or (by the JNF) Keren Kayemeth Leisrael, hence the abbreviation KKL.

Anna & Maxa Nordau, Max Nordau: A Biography (New York, 1943), p. 172, give Nordau credit for assuring adoption of the fund proposal: "There is little doubt that Nordau's speech in its support swung the Congress to adopt it. H e gave an impassioned description of the wretchedness of an uprooted people ...," who were (quoting from Nordau's speech) "in- comparably the poorest of all the peoples in the world" (p. 172), and whose wretchedness derived from the fact that "it has not a square foot of its own land" (pp. 173-74). The only "means of salvation" for this state of affairs was to provide the Jewish people with "their own soil under their own feet" (p. 176), an objective the JNF was to accomplish.

Herzl's brief account (Diaries, pp. 1187-93) of the Fifth Congress assesses the credit somewhat differently. Although he notes that Nordau's speech was "brilliant, but imprudent in places" (p. 1192), he records: "How the Fund fared in the Congressis a matter of record. From time to time I was absent; then Tschlenow, egged on by Bodenheimer [an opponent of the Fund as proposed by the AC], messed up the whole thing. They [the delegates] accepted the draft 'provisionally.' Then who would have made a donation? I came back, listened to the nonsense, annulled the decision, and put the draft through the way we need it" (pp. 1190- 91).

THE JEWISH NATIONAL FUND 79

The amendment adopted provided for a special committee to work with the AC on the legal status and incorporation of the JNF. As adopted, the proposal included the essentials of Schapira's 1897 draft with two exceptions: ( I ) the sum to be raised before purchases were made was now "to be determined by the Congress" (i(;200,000 was suggested) ; and (2) the funds were to be used "exclusively for the purchase of land." The latter provision was intended to keep the JNF from assuming any of the functions of the Jewish Colonial Trust.

Although initially on a small scale, the JNF became active immediately. The headquarters were established in Vienna and Kremenezky was named its head.15 1902 saw the creation of three fund-raising devices: the blue collection boxes for homes, the JNF stamp,16 and, for large contributors, inscription of their names in the Golden Book (now on exhibit a t JNF head- quarters in Jerusalem).

The disagreements concerning the tactics - but not the ob-jectives - of Jewish colonization of Palestine continued even after establishment of the JNF. The view of Herzl and his close associates on the AC was that colonization rights, i.e., a charter, should be secured first, followed by l&nd purchases and settlement. Accordingly they viewed the small settlements in Palestine by the Love of Zion groups as experimental, and were opposed to the founding of more until, in the words of the 1897 Basle Programme, "a home in Palestine [had been] secured by public law."17 Herzl had evinced this attitude at the First Congress with his reluctance to have Schapira's proposal acted on; he was opposed probably more to the timing than to the substance of the pro- posal. Others, especially the Russian Zionists, saw Herzl's position as belittling

Alex Bein, The Return to the Soil: A History of Jewish Settlement in Israel (Jerusalem: Zionist Organization, 1952), p. 16, notes: "At the suggestion of Johann Kremenetzky, the Fourth Congress (London, 1900) decided to set up the Jewish National Fund, and the Fifth Congress (Basle, 1901), under pressure from Herzl, implemented the decision." Another brief but useful summary of the development of the JNF is in Orni, op. cit.

l5 The headquarters were later moved to Cologne (1907), then to The Hague (1914), and finally to Jerusalem (1922). Following Kremenezky, the JNF was headed by Max Boden- heimer (beginning in 1907), a provisional committee (1914), Nehemia de Lieme (1919), Menahem Ussishkin (1921), an executive committee (1941), Abraham Granott (1945), and currently Jacob Tsur (1956).

l0 These fund-raising stamps, overprinted "post," were used as postage stamps in the early days of the state of Israel, and were sold for this purpose on the streets as early as May 9, 1948; Terence Prittie, Eshkol: The M a n and the Nation (New York: Pitman, 1969), pp. 130-31.

l7 Emphasis added. J. C. Hurewitz, Diplomacy in the Near and Middle Eas t : A Documentary Record (Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1956), vol. I , p. 209; for the original see Verhandlungen des I . Zionisten-Congresses, pp. 114, 119.

than real, due to the fact that Herzl and his supporters on the AC were by no means ready to concede defeat and saw to it that no purchases of land were made. In addition, the assets of the JNF at this time were too limited to engage in large purchases in any case. As of August 1, 1903 the net assets were reported as &19,767 and 200 (Turkish) dunums in Palestine; the land had not been acquired through purchase but had been a gift.20 Two years later at the Seventh Congress (Basle, July-August 1905) the net assets were reported to have grown to E41,997 and the same 200 dunums of land,21 and the arguments between the practical and the political Zionists again surfaced.

At this Congress two resolutions of note were adopted. The first put the Congress on record as rejecting "unplanned, unsystematic, and philanthropic small-scale colonization, which does not fall within the scope of Point I of the Basle Programme."22 The advocates of the political approach attempted to clinch this victory by a second motion prohibiting any land purchases until they could be made on a "firm, legal basis" -a clear reference to Herzl's notion of securing a charter first. This attempt in effect failed; as adopted, the motion included an amendment authorizing the JNF to make the deter- mination "in every individual case" of whether or not "thfs basis existed."23 Accordingly, eight years after Schapira's proposal and four after the Fifth Congress, and having been criticized for making no purchases, the JNF made its first purchases later the same year, 1905, acquiring a total of5,600 (Turkish) dunums, 2,000 at Kefar Hittim (northwest of Tiberias), 2,000 at Hulda (south of Ramle), and 1,600 at Ben Shemen (east of Lydda) .24

Since under Ottoman law these lands could not be left uncultivated without their being liable to reversion to the state, and leasing them to Pales- tinian Arabs had been prohibited by action of the Sixth Congress (in addition to which long-term tenants could under the law establish a claim to continued possession), having cmbarked on a programme of land acquisition the World Zionist Organization (WZO) had no alternative but to proceed with coloniza- tion and to regularize the legal status of the JNF. To accomplish the latter, the

20 Op. cit., p. 252. a1 Stenographisches Protokoll der Verhandlungen des VIZ. Zionisten-Kongresses und des Ausseror-

dentlichen Kongresses in Basel, 27. Juli bis 2. August 1905 (Berlin, 1905), pp. 224-25. 22 Op.cit., p. 238. Point I of the Basle Programme called for "the promotion on suitable

lines of the colonization of Palestine by Jewish farmers, craftsmen, and manufacturers." 23 Op. cit., pp. 237, 264-65. 24 JNF-Jerusalem; Bein, op. cit., p. 23. Israel Cohen, A Short History of Zionism (London,

1951), p. 64: "A modern secondary school was built in 1905 ...on a site on the border ofJaffa provided by the Jewish National Fund. It was called the 'Herzl Gymnasium' ... ."

JNF was incorporated in England in April 1907 as the Juedischer National-fonds (Keren Kajemeth Le Jisroel) Limited, an "association limited by guarantee and not having a capital divided into shares."25 According to the Memo-randum of Association, the "primary object" for which the JNF was organized was "to purchase, take on lease or in exchange, or otherwise acquire any lands, forests, rights of possession and other rights, easements and other im- movable property in the prescribed region (which expression shall in this Memorandum mean Palestine, Syria, any other parts of Turkey in Asia and the Peninsula of Sinai) or any part thereof, for the purpose of settling Jews on such lands."Ze

According to the Articles of Association, "members of the Association" had to be holders of Founders' Shares of the Jewish Colonial Trust (Articles 4-6), thus assuring that the JNF and the Trust would cooperate closely and effectively. Control of the JNF by the WZO was absolute, since the "Con- trolling Committee of the Association" was the Small AC (Art. 25). The powers of the Controlling Committee included "at Bny time" prohibiting "any action or course of action intended or proposed to be taken by the Direc- tors; then and in that case the action or course of action so prohibited shall cease to be within the powers of the Directors" (Art. 26). In addition, the Controlling Committee was empowered to appoint up to three "Governors" who could "attend and vote at meetings of the Board of Directors" (Art. 27) ; if the Governors "at any meeting of the Directors shall vote against any resolution proposed at such meeting such resolution shall be deemed to be lost and shall be of no effect" (Art. 31) ; the Governors' tenure of office was "such time as the Controlling Committee shall determine" (Art. 33). The members of the Association were to elect the Directors, one-third of whom were to retire every year, but were eligible for re-election (Arts. 35-38) ; the number of Directors could vary from a minimum of tlgee to a maximum of seven (Arts. 27, 41).27

26 aThe name was subsequently officially changed to Keren Kayemth Leisrael Ltd. and new certificate of incorporation was issued in June 1936. Report on the Legal Structure, Activities, Assets, Income and Liabilities of the Keren Kayameth Leisrael, Jewish National Fund (Jerusalem, 1973),p. 17; (hereafter Rebort on the JNF). The full text of the Memorandum and Articles of Association, both the 1907 version and as subsequently amended, is here given on pp. 15-45. Unless othetwise indicated, all quotations are from the 1907 text.

ae Clause 3, subclause 1, op. cit., p. 17. This is identified as "the primary object" in the f ind paragraph of clause 3.

Subsequently the maximum was increased to fifteen. However, Report on the JNF, p. 6, gives the size of the Board as thirty, and the Israel Government Year Book 5732 (1971-72) (Jeru-salem, 1972), p. 343, shows a Board consisting ofa governor, a chairman, a deputy chairman,

Since the WZO had no office in Palestine capable of overseeing Jewish settlement of the acquired lands, the Eighth Zionist Congress (The Hague, August 1907) decided to open a Palestine Ofice in Jaffa, which began operations in early 1908. At the same time, the WZO founded a land-purchasing and development company. I t was incorporated in England as the Palestine Land Deuelopment Company Limited, with a capital of g50,000 in £1 shares. The Company was to serve private individuals as well as the JNF as a central land-purchasing agency. By this means it was hoped to check speculation and to avoid random and unsystematic purchases of small and/or scattered parcels of land unsuitable for large-scale colonization. The Company made its first purchases in 1909 and in time became the principal purchasing agent for the JNF.

The expenses of the Palestine Office were provided largely by the JNF, which also provided assistance and loans to settlers. Although the JNF was severely criticized for these departures from its land-acquisition mission, it defended them on the ground that its charter "provided for investment in any project that would further the rebuilding and resettlement of P a l e ~ t i n e . " ~ ~

Another milestone in the history of the JNF was provided by the Zionist Conference held in London in July 1920. At this Conference, the basic notions of land holding and leasing were developed (details in following section), the JNF was authorized to commit all of its funds for the purchase of land, and Zionists were called on to multiply their fund-raising efforts on behalf of the JNP. I t was also decided to organize an immigration and colonization fund of g25,000,000 known in Hebrew as qeren hayasod (popularly transliterated Keren Hayesod). The following year it was incorporated in England as the Palestine Foundation Fund Limited, like the JNF, an association limited by

and twenty-two additional members. The governor listed is also chairman of the Zionist Executive and of the Executive of the Jewish Agency.

es E.Z.I., pp. 627-28. This claim appears to be based on the Memorandum of Association, clause 3: "to promote any companies for any purpose which may seem likely to directly or indirectly benefit the Association. .." (subclause 14); "to make advances to any Jews in the prescribed region upon any security which may be thought fit" (18); and "to do all such other things as are or may be deemed by the Association ...to be incidental or conducive to the attainment of the above objects" (22);Report on the JNF, p. 21.

Prittie, op. cit., p. 50: "It is still a matter of doubt whether the kibbutz movement would have succeeded but for the financial help which came from the Jewish National Fund." Cohen, op. cit.,p. 65: "The systematic development of colonization in Palestine by the Zionist Organization began in 1908 with the establishment of the Palestine Office in Jaffa ... . The first undertaking promoted by this office was the building of a Jewish residential suburb on the border of Jaffa with the help of a loan of &10,000 given by the Jewish National Fund. The suburb was named Tel Aviv ... ."

guarantee and not having a share capital.29 I t was to be Jewry's central financial institution, seeking the participation of all Zionist and non-Zionist Jews, and deriving its income principally from an annual tax to be paid by all Jews. At least 20 per cent of its funds were to be turned over to the JNF. Of the remainder, one-third was to be spent on colonization and two- thirds invested in "permanent national institutions or economic under-t a k i n g ~ . " ~ ~ of the Foundation Fund, of the earlierThe establishment as Palestine Land Development Co., represented an attempt - not wholly successful - to restrict the activities of the JNF to its original purpose: land acquisition.

I n its early years, JNF acquisitions were modest. By 1920 it held title to only 16,366 d ~ n u m s . ~ l 1920 theSeveral events, however, in prepared stage for a new phase of activity and for increased purchases. In July the Bri- tish Military Administration (not always in sympathy with the Zionist cause) was replaced by a Civil Administration headed by Sir Herbert Samuel, "a Jew and a Zionist," who enjoyed the confidence of the WZO and of the Zionist Commission in P a l e ~ t i n e . ~ ~ September this newIn government issued a Land Transfer Ordinance, the effect of which was to make it easier for Jews to purchase land.33 I n October the Land Registry Offices were reopened, thus removing legal impediments to the transfer of ownership. In addition, the government certified the JNF "as having purposes of public

20 E.Z.I . , p. 659. According to its Memorandum of Association it was: "(a) To do all such acts and things as shall appear to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of carrying out the declaration of His Majesty's Government (commonly known as 'the Balfour Declaration') incorporated in the Treaty of Si.vres, dated 2nd day of November, 1917, as to the establish- ment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine (Eretz Israel). (b) To appeal for and to receive subscriptions, loans, gifts, legacies, bequests and donations in money or any other form and to hold, realize and invest the same or any part thereof ..." (ibid.).

As established, the Foundation Fund was to be governed by a Board; half of its members were to be nominated by the WZO and half by a Council "chosen by all contributors," including non-Zionists. Such a Council was never organized and the Fund "remained com- pletely under the World Zionist Organization's control." Ben Halpern, The Idea of the Jewish State, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969), p. 190.

E.Z.I., p. 735. 31 J N F - Jerusalem. 32 John Marlowe (pseudonym for Jack Collard), The Seat of Pilate: A n Account of the

Palestine Mandate (London: Cresset, 1959), p. 87. 33 The Commission of Inquiry headed by Sir Thomas Haycraft found that Palestinian

Arab opposition to the Land Transfer Ordinance was among the contributory causes of the May 1921 uprising. The Commission reported that the Arabs regarded the Ordinance "as having been introduced to keep down the price of land and to throw land which is in the market into the hands of the Jews at a low price ... ." Report of the Commission of Inquiry on the Disturbances of M a y , 1921 v m d . 1540; London, 1921), p. 51.

~t i l i ty"~%nd registered it as a foreign company authorized to engage in business, specifically the purchase and development of land in Palestine. As a consequence JNF holdings began to increase steadily, from 22,363 dunums in 1920 to 278,627 in 1930, 515,950 in 1940, and 936,000 by May 1948.

The period since 1948 has seen several developments of consequence for the JNF. One result of the 1947-49 fighting in Palestine was "the eva-cuation from the State [of Israel] of the vast majority of its Arab inhabitant^."^^ The Israeli government accepted "this miracle" and made a "bold decision": "under no circumstances should the Arabs return to Israel." Thus "the minority problem liable to weigh heavily upon Israel's upbuilding and development" was disposed of and, since "most of the Arab absentees were owners of rural land," large amounts of land were now made available for "redemption." Since for security as well as development reasons this so-called "abandoned land" could not be left unattended, the government appointed a Custodian of Abandoned Property who "acted in the place of the former owners, ... collecting and recording the property and freezing it under one authority." At the same time, to avoid having the action "interpreted as con- fiscation of the abandoned property," the government cregted "a sort of legal fiction" and established an "independent" Development Authority to which the Custodian transferred, but did not sell, the abandoned land. The Authority -which undertook to pay the former owners as a consequence of an even- tual settlement between Israel and the Arab states -was empowered to do virtually anything with the land, including selling it, but only to (1) the state, (2) the JNF, (3) local municipal authorities, or (4) an "institution for settling landless Arabs." This institution was never established, and in fact the major purchaser of land was the JNF. Accordingly, under agreements negotiated in January 1949 and October 1950, the JNF bought 2,373,676 dunums of abandoned land, thus more than trebling its 1941 holdings. These agreements gave the JNF clear title to the land and guaranteed that it would not be held liable in any way as a result of any eventual settlement with the Palestinian Arabs.

I n November 1953 the Knesset adopted the Keren Kayemeth Leisrael Law, 5714-1953 which authorized the Minister of Justice "to approve the

34 Report on the JNF, p. 5. 35 Granott, Agrarian Reform, p. 95. A useful summary of "Developments since the Rise

of the State" is provided, pp. 85-112, from which the following quotations and details are taken. For a detailed account by an Israeli Arab attorney of post-1948 developments with regard to acquisitions of Arab-owned land, see Sabri Jiryis, T h e Arab5 in Israel: 1948-1966 (Beirut: The Institute for Palestine Studies, 1968), pp. 55-90.

Memorandum and Articles of Association of a company limited by guarantee to be submitted to him by the Existing Company [the JNF incorporated in England] for the establishment of a body incorporated in Israel with a view to continuing the activities of the Existing Company that had been founded and incorporated in the D i a s p ~ r a . " ~ ~ and Articles ofThe new Memorandum Association were submitted and approved on May 20, 1954,37 under which the new Israeli corporation acquired all the assets, liabilities, etc. of the JNF, incorporated in England in 1907. The "primary object of' the Association" was now "to purchase, acquire on lease or in exchange, or receive on lease or otherwise, lands, forests, rights of possession, easements and any similar rights as well as immovable properties of any class, in the prescribed region (which expression shall in this Memorandum mean the State of Israel in any area within the jurisdiction of the Government of Israel) or in any part thereof, for the purpose of settling Jews on such lands and properties" (Clause 3, Sub-clause a) . As a comparison of this text with that of 1907 shows, the new Memo- randum and Articles generally closely parallel the earlier ones.

Another significant post-1948 development has been a gradual shift in the emphasis and activities of the JNF from land adquisition to (1) land reclamation, (2) road building (since 1967 also in the occupied territories),38 (3) various forms of assistance to new settlements, including well drilling, construction of dams and irrigation systems, and (4) large-scale aff~restation.~Q The JNF's fund-raising, information and education activities have, of course, continued substantially without change.

I n November 1961 the JNF and the Israeli government signed a Cove- nant40 clarifying the relationship of the JNF to the state and spelling out their respective powers and responsibilities. Under this Covenant, based on legislation enacted by the Knesset in July 1960,41 two bodies were set up:

88 Article 2 ; for an English translation of the full text, see Report on the JNF, pp. 49-51. 87 Op.cit.,p. 55. For an English translation of the Memorandum and the Articles, see op.

cit., pp. 56-76. 38 Bag., a highway through the West Bank linking Jerusalem with t h t upper

Jordan valley, with the JNF providing half the cost, begun in November 1972; Terence Smith, "Israel is Quietly Building a Highway on West Bank," New York Times, February 20, 1973.

89 E.Z.I., p. 629. 40 For what is identified as an "unofficial" English translation of the Covenant, ser

Report on the JNF, pp. 78-83, from which all following quotations are taken. 41 Basic Law: Israel Lands (enacted July 19, 1960), Israel Lands Law, 5720-1960 (July 25,

1960), and Israel Lands Administration Law, 5720-1960 (July 25, 1960), op. cit., pp. 85-94; also Government of Israel, Laas of the State of Israel, vol. 14 (5720-1960), pp. 48-52.

an Israel Larlds Administration and a Land Development Administration. The Lands Administration, headed by a Director subordinate to the Minister of Agriculture and responsible to a Board of thirteen (seven representing the government and six the JNF), was to manage in accordance with an agreed uniform land policy all state and JNF lands; the expenses of the Lands Admin- istration were to be borne by the government. The Development Administra- tion, headed by a Director subordinate to the JNF and responsible to a Board of thirteen (seven representing the JNF and six the government), was res- ponsible for "reclamation, development and afforestation" of all state and JNF lands; the administrative expenses were to be borne by the JNF. Costs of reclamation, etc., were to be borne by the registered owners, i.e., the JNF or the state.

The Covenant further stipulated that the JNF and the state would each retain title to its lands, and that the JNF "shall continue to operate, as an independent agency of the World Zionist Organization, among the Jewish public in Israel and the Diaspora, raising hnds for the redemption of land ... and conducting informational and Zionist-Israel educational activities . . . . "42

42 See also Jacob Tsur (chairman, JNF Board of Directors), Old Concepts and New Real- ities (Jerusalem, 1962), pp. 9-17, and E.Z.I., p. 629.

In addition to the blue collection boxes for homes and the sale of JNF stamps and of Golden Book inscriptions, JNF income has been derived from a variety of sources. Notable among them are: sale of Tree CertiJicates, establishment of various fund-raising clubs, bequests, sale of annuity trusts, issues of debentures, short-term loans from individuals, banks, and insurance companies, deficit financing (especially during World War 11), and, from members of the Yishuv, an annual tax and indirect taxation levied on public entertainment tickets, bank checks, hotel accounts, and on crops raised on JNF lands. Another source of income has been a share of the collections in the USA of the United Palestine Appeal (1926-39) and of the United Jewish Appeal, begun in 1939 with the JNF receiving 22.5 per cent of the UJA receipts. In view of the size of the contributions of American Jews, the latter amount is not insignificant; e.g., from 1901 to September 1946, American Jews contributed the equivalent of A7,865,200, representing 51.8 per cent of JNF net income from direct contributions; Keren Kayemeth Leisrael Ltd. (Jewish National Fund), Rebort for 5700-5706 (1939-1946), submitted to the Twenty-Second Zionist Congress, Basle, December 9, 1946 (Jerusalem, 1946), pp. 57-64; (hereafter JNF Report 1946).

According to the American Jewish Year Book, 1972 (New York: The American Jewish Committee, 1972), p. 285, Table 7, JNF "collections in the US" in 1971 totalled $4,703,322. For some current details see the UP1 dispatch from New York, "Private Gifts to Israel Dwarf Official US Aid," Los Angeles Times, September 3, 1973. According to this, of the $2 billion (exclusive of Israeli bond sales) raised for Israel by American Jews since 1948, $1.47 billion has been raised through the UJA.

JNF disbursements have covered four general types of activity: (1) land purchases, (2) land reclamation and afforestation, (3) loans and grants to settlers and settlements, and (4) information and education. The latter includes funds used for political lobbying; e.g., the American Zionist Emergency Council, "the political action wing of the four major American Zionist organizations," had in the early 1940's a "budget of more than $500,000 a year ...

Thus through the JNF, as through the Jewish Agency, the WZO shares with the state of Israel a curious sort of c ~ n d o m i n i u m ~ ~ what was onceover known as Palestine. Probably the most significant consequence of this Cove- nant was that JNF restrictive policies regarding the sale and leasing of land were applied to all state lands,44 which together with JNF lands constitute 90 per cent of the land in Israel. The implications of this for non-Jewish Israeli citizens, as for any settlement of the conflict, are obvious.

Although the JNF purchased its first land in 1905, and the first kibbutz on JNF land was established at Deganya (south of Tiberias) in 1909,45 pro- gress prior to 1920 was very modest for a number of reasons. In the first place, the JNF lacked sufficient funds for large purchases. In the second place,

underwritten by the Jewish National Fund and the Palestine Foundation Fund .... Contri-butions donated for use in Palestine thus were diverted to an organization devoted to spreading Zionist political propaganda in the United States ... ." Robert Silverberg, I f I Forget Thee 0 Jerusalem: American Jews and the State of Israel (New York: Morrow, 1970), 232-33; similarly Samuel Halperin, The Political World of American Zionism (Detroit: Wajne State University Press, 1961), pp. 270-78.

43 Tsur, op. cit., p. 22, calls it a "partnership between the Government and the Keren Kayemeth."

44 Tsur, op. cit., pp. 11, 15; also Report on the J N F , p. 6, and various articles of the Cov- enant. The sale ofstate and JNF lands is explicitly prohibited by the Basic L a w : Israel Lands, Section 1: "The ownership of Israel lands, being the lands in Israel of the State, the Development Authority or the Keren Keyemet Le-Israel, shall not be transferred either by sale or in any other manner." Laws of the State of Israel, vol. 14 (1960), p. 48.

The application of JNF leasing policies to state lands was formalized by the Agricultural Settlement (Restrictions on Use of Agricultural Land and of Water) Law, 5727-1967,enacted August 1, 1967; Laws of the State of Israel, vol. 21 (1966-67), pp. 105-1 10. This law, Section 2, states: "A person occupying or entitled to occupy agricultural land, being Israel lands within the meaning of the Basic Law: Israel Lands, under a lease agreement or by authority (such a person hereinafter referred to as 'the occupier'), shall not make non-conforming use of that land save under a written permit from the Minister of Agriculture ... ." (Section 3 similarly prohibits the transfer of an occupier's water quota.) In the First Schedule to the law, "non- conforming use" is defined, inter alia, as "the transfer, vesting or charging of any right which the occupier has in the land or in any part thereof. .. ." However to appreciate the impact of this law, it is necessary to keep in mind (1) that under the 1961 Covenant between the state and the JNF a non-Jew is not "a person ... entitled to occupy ... Israel land ... under a lease agreement..."; (2) that this law prohibits a legal occupier (i.e., a Jew) from transferring his rights under lease to anyone; thus the state under colour of law effectively prevents ariy non-Jew from leasing or holding any rights in state or JNF land; and (3) that this applies to 90 per cent of the land in Israel. One is tempted to wonder under what circumstances the Minister of Agriculture might be induced to permit non-conforming use of agricultural land by an Arab.

For the effect of this law on Arab citizens of Israel, see John K. Cooley, "Israeli Arabs do well, but ...," Christian Science Monitor, May 3 , 1973.

45 Israel Cohen, The Zionist Movement (New York, 1946), p. 104.

the JNF had to contend with restrictions or prohibitions on the purchase of land by Jews during the Ottoman period, at the end of which came the dis- ruptions caused by World War I. After the British military occupation in 1917, the Military Administration closed the Land Registry Offices, which remained closed until the Civil Administration took over in 1920. In the third place, no clear land policy had been developed, and purchases were made wherever and whenever lands and funds were available. The policy during the early years appears to have been a vague one of buying as much and as soon as possible. As a result the quality and agricultural potential of the land acquired varied, the costs of acquisition and of development tended to be high, and the parcels were relatively small and often widely separated - at best a costly, inefficient, and slow means of furthering Jewish colonization of Palestine.

All of these matters were discussed at length at the 1920 Zionist Conference in London, as was that of private vs. public ownership: was land in Palestine to become the property of Jews or of the Jewish people? At this Conference agreement was reached, on the basis of which policy regarding acquisition, holding, and leasing of land was developed. The Conference declared that "the guiding principle of Zionist land policy is to transfer into common possession of the Jewish people those areas in which Jewish settlement is to take place," and that the JNF was to be "the instrument of Jewish land p0licy."4~ Thus while private ownership by Jews was not prohibited, it was also not to be encouraged and supported with the resources of the WZO. The adopted resolutions further stated that the 49-year leases could (1) be renewed for an additional 49 years, and (2) be inherited, but only by one heir to prevent fragmenting the holding. I n addition, the lessee had to agree (3) to live on the land, (4) -in the case of agricultural land - to cultivate the land himself, and ( 5 ) to pay an annual rent amounting to 2 per cent of the value for agricultural and 4 per cent for urban land. The land was to be reassessed every seven years and the rent adjusted accordingly. Further, (6) the size of the leasehold was to be determined by the amount the lessee and his family could cultivate without hiring help, and (7) no lessee could hold more than one lease.

Beginning in 1921, the JNF developed what Granott calls "a rational and considered land and, under the climate created by the Samuel

45 Orni, op. cit., pp. 21-22; see also Granott, Agrarian Reform, pp. 49-53, and E.Z.I., s.v. Land Policy in Israel and London Zionist Conference of 1920.

47 Agrarian Reform, p. 31. Abraham Granott (formerly Granovsky/Granowsky) was

administration, began to make larger purchases. In 1921 it purchased 43,021 dunums,4* thereby doubling its previous holdings. The new land policy was dictated by several considerations. Land for agricultural settlement remained, of course, an important objective. This required the acquisition of large, or small but contiguous, tracts of land. However, agricultural settlement was no longer the only objective. Strategic, security and national political objectives now became important considerations in making land purchases. However, the three objectives -agricultural settlement, security, and national political - did not always indicate the same tactics. The first two suggested the desirability of large and/or contiguous acquisitions; the third, on the other hand, suggested acquisitions in border areas, hence at times widely separated parcels of land. I n time the third objective became increasingly the major one, and, after the Peel Commission in 1937 recommended partition of Pales- tine, "it became JNF policy to acquire land in areas excluded from the pro- posed Jewish state and to form settlements there."49

In 1940 the JNF suffered an apparent setback and again was faced with restrictions on land purchases. In accordance with the policy enunciated in the 1939 White Paper by the British government, new Eand Transfer Regula- tions (effective from May 1939) were published in February 1940.50 The Regulations divided Palestine into three zones. I n Zone A (63 per cent of Palestine), Jewish purchases were virtually prohibited, while in Zone B (32 per cent) they were severely restricted. Thus in only a small Free Zone (5 per cent) were there no restrictions on land purchases, and in this area just over half of the land was already Jewish owned. However restrictive these Regulations may appear, and whatever the intent of the mandate govern- ment, the Regulations had little discernible effect on continued purchases by the JNF, which increased its holdings from 473,000 dunums in September

closely associated with the JNF from 1919 until his death in 1962, serving as chairman of the Board from 1945-1956; E.Z.I. , pp. 409-410.

JNF-Jerusalem. For full details based primarily on this source, see the appendix to this paper.

49 E.Z.I., pp. 628-629; JNF Report 1946, p. 15: "During the war years the J.N.F. strove to open up new areas for settlement ,particularly those which might be cut off by any partition plan." Similarly Granott, Agrarian R g o r m , pp. 34-35. The so-called "stockade and tower" settlements were begun during this period as an outgrowth of this policy.

Palestine Gazette, February 28, 1940, and L a w s of Palestine 1940, vol. 11, p. 327; although published in February 1940, the Requlations were "deemed to have come into force on the eighteenth day of May 1939." See also Robert John and Sami Hadawi, T h e Palestine Diny: 1914-1945 (Beirut: Palestine Liberation Organization Research Centre. 19701, pp. 332-34, and George Kirk, T h e Middle Eas t i n the W a r , Royal Institute of International Affairs Survey, 1939-1946 (London, 1952), pp. 232-35.

1939 to 835,000 in September 1946 (although less than one-third of this increase is reflected in government records of purchases by Jews during this period). Of the new acquisitions, 270,000 dunums (i.e., 79 per cent) were in Zones A or B, 75,000 formerly owned by Jews and 195,000 by Arabs, including non-resident Lebanese and S y r i a n ~ . ~ ~ While not all, many of these acquisitions were undoubtedly in violation of the Regulations, testimony to the effectiveness of the JNF in pursuing its objectives, to the laxity of enforce- ment of the Regulations by the government, and to the economic conditions prevailing in Palestine at that time.

Although not the only possible explanation for any discrepancies, one measure of the effectiveness of the JNF in circumventing the Regulations is provided by a comparison of purchases claimed by the JNF with total Jewish purchases recorded by the government during 1939- 1 945.62 Details in dunums are summarized in the following table:

JNF Purchases Recorded Jewish Purchases

1939 53,499 27,973 1940 43,180 2?,48 1 1941 45,460 14,530 1942 48,98 1 18,810 1943 67,265 18,035 1944 67,357 8,311 1945 65,644 1 1,000 (est.)

Total : 391,386 121,140

The 1947 UN partition recommendation demonstrated the wisdom of JNF policy. In the words of Granott :

The frontiers [i.e., the 1949 armistice lines] of the new State, which march in so curiously winding a fashion, were largely determined by the success of the Jews in creating faits accomplis. All those parts to which the Jewish settlers had penetrated were included within the state, whereas those where they were not strong enough, or did not have time to plant stakes, remained fur the most part outside. Proof of this is seen in a com- parison of the two proposals for the Partition of Palestine, of 1937 and

61 E.Z.I., p. 629; J N F Report 1946, pp. 14-21; Orni, op. cit., p. 60. Among the methods used to circumvent the Regulations, a common one practised from the early settlement days was to have the land registered in the name of an individual who would give the JNF an irrevocable power-of-attorney. British and South African Jews as well as some Arab land brokers were willing to help in this manner; Amos Elon, The Israelis :Founders and Sons (New York: Harper and Row, 1971), p. 94.

Sa Based on J N F - Jerusalem and Government of Palestine, Survey of Palestine, vol. I , p. 244.

1947... . Developments during the ... ten years are reflected in the bound- aries drawn in the United Nations partition plan of 1947 ... . Thus the various objectives - national policy, security, and strategy, were linked through land acquisition with the settlement objective, all being welded together into a united, systematic, purposeful, and far-seeing policy ... .53

Since title to the land purchased by the JNF was to be held in perpetuity, "as the inalienable property of the Jewish people,"54 use of the land required the development of a system of long-term leasing, the lessor being the JNF. Under the terms as they eventually developed -whereby the land could be leased for specified purposes for periods up to 49 years, a t the end of which the lessee could renew the lease for a similar period, a total of 98 years - the lease itself had considerable value and could, subject to the lessor's approval, be subleased, sold, mortgaged, bequeathed, or given as a gift. As noted above, the lessor had the right to make periodic reassessments of the land, and to change the rent accordingly. The lessor had the further rights, which could be exercised at its discretion, to inspect the property, to decrease the amount of land held, and to take back the land if the lessee was held to have violated the terms of the lease. I n the latter instance the lessee might, depending on the nature of his violation of the terms, receive compensation for improvements he had made.55

All of these terms, including the lessee's rights, were subject to one over- riding condition, made explicit in the lease: the lessee must be Jewish. Accord-

53 Granott, Agrarian Reform, pp. 37-38; Orni, op. cit., p. 63. Similar claims can be found repeatedly in JNF literature; e.g., Herbert Freeden: "The Fund's land policy was amply vindicated: in November 1947 the United Nations drew the boundaries of the proposed Jewish state almost entirely in accordance with the land holdings of the Jewish National Fund. In the War of Independence settlements on land, bought by the JNF in strategic areas, helped to stop the invaders." "The JNF in 25 Years of Statehood," in I. M. Biderman (edi- tor), 1973 JNF Handbook: Israel's 25th Anniversary (New York, 1973), p. 2.

54 Article 3, Constitution of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, adopted August 1929; quoted in John Hope Simpson, Palestine: Report on Immigration, Land Settlement and Development (Cmd. 3686; London, 1930), p. 53. The same Article also states: "The Agency shall promote agricul- tural colonization based on Jewish labour, and in all works or undertakings carried out or furthered by the Agency, it shall be deemed to be a matter of principle that Jewish labour shall be employed ... ." Although the enlarged Jewish Agency was established by the Six- teenth Zionist Congress (Zurich, August 1929) to draw support from Zionists and non-Zionists, and both groups were to share in its governance, "when the original non-Zionist leaders who joined the Jewish Agency dropped out one by one in the natural course of events, they were not replaced by new non-Zionists, and the Jewish Agency reverted gradually to what it was at first - another name for the Zionist Organization." Halpern, op. cit., p. 195.

j5 Granott, The Lznd System in Palestine :History and Strzictlire (London: Eyre and Spot-tiswoode, 1952), pp. 315-26, gives the most detailed account ofthe system of leasillg developed by the JNF. H e does not, however, state explicitly the overriding condition that all of this is applicable only to Jews.

THE JEWISH NATIONAL FUND 93

ingly, the land could not be leased to a non-Jew, nor could the lease be sub- leased, or sold, or mortgaged, or given, or bequeathed to any but a Jew. Non- Jews could not be employed on the land or even in any work connected with the cultivation of the land. Violation of this term of the lease rendered the lessee liable for damages to the lessor, and the third violation gave the lessor the right to abrogate the lease without any compensation to the lessee.56

Sincc the JNF eventually became, next to the government, the largest la~ldowner in Palestine, its practices were adopted by, or at times imposed on, other Jewish landowner^.^' The result, hence, of JNF activity was - as noted by John Hope Simpson in 1930 - that the "land has been extrater- ritorialized. I t ceases to be land from which the Arab can gain any advantage either now or at any time in the future." This was "not only contrary to the provisions ... of the Mandate, but ... in addition a constant and increasing source of danger to the country."58 I n spite of these and subsequent criticisms

The JNF lease, article 2 3 , states inter alia: "The lessee undertakes to execute all works connected with the cultivation of the holding only with Jewish labour. Failure to comply with this duty by the employment of non-Jewish labour shall render !he lessee liable to the payment of a compensation of ten Palestinian pounds for each default. The fact of the employ- ment of non-Jewish labour shall constitute adequate proof as to the damages and amount thereof, and the right of the Fund to be paid the compensation referred to, and it shall not be necessary to serve on the lessee any notarial or other notice. Where the lessee has contra- vened the provisions of this Article three times the Fund may apply the right ofrestitution of the holding, without paying any compensation whatever." Quoted in Hope Simpson, op. cit., p. 5 3 . The prohibition of any non-Jewish workers was also included explicitly in the repayment agreements for advances to Jewish settlers made by the Palestine Foundation Fund; ibid. Among the conclusions in this Report, the terms under which the JNF purchased and leased land were described as "objectionable," and it was recommended that they "should be radical- ly altered" (p. 142).

The prohibition of non-Jewish workers did not of course originate with the JNF. Herzl foresaw the need as early as June 12, 1895: "We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, whiledenying it any employment in our own country." Diaries, p. 88.

57 Hope Simpson, op. cit., p. 55. As Israeli Member of Knesset Uri Avnery relates it: "Hebrew Labour meant, necessarily, No Arab Labour. The 'redemption of the land' often meant, necessarily, 'redeeming' it from the Arab fellahin who happened to be living in it. A Jewish plantation owner who employed Arabs in his orange grove was a traitor to th;cause, a despicable reactionary who not only deprived a Jewish worker of work, but even more important, deprived the country of a Jewish worker. His grove had to be picketed, the Arabs had to be evicted by force. Bloodshed, if necessary, was justified." H e further notes that Arab tenants "were simply evicted when the land was redeemed by the Jewish National Fund in order to set up a kibbutz." Israel Without Zionists: A Plea for Peace in the Middle East (New York: hlacmillan, 1968), p. 85.

5a Hope Simpson, op.cit., pp. 54 and 5 5 respectively. The Mandate for Palestine, Article 6, states that Jewish immigration and settlement are to be facilitated and encouraged, "while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced ... ." Hurewitz, op. cit., vol. 11, p. 108. The Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine and Related Problems in 1946 recommended (No. 7 b) "that steps be taken to render nugatory

94 JOURNAL OF PALESTINE STUDIES

of the JNF, and of repeated Palestinian Arab protests, nothing was done by the mandate government to prevent the JNF from continuing to place restrictive covenants on its land. This practice continues to this day in Israel, where the JNF remains the second largest landowner, the largest being the state.

I n conclusion, the achievements of the JNF in "redeeming" the land of Palestine, for which purpose it was established, can be evaluated only within the larger context of the conflict for control of Palestine. Such an evaluation falls beyond the scope of this paper. Suffice it to say here that according to JNF sources (already cited, and accepting their claims at face value), the JNF made its first purchases in 1905 and by May 1948 held title to 936,000 dunums, the result of 43 years of land acquisition, representing 3.55 per cent of the total land area of mandated Palestine (exclusive of Transjordan). In view of the fact that from October 1920 (date of reopening of the Land Registry Offices in Palestine) to May 1939 (effective date of the restrictive Land Transfer Regulations), a total of nineteen years, the JNF had no legal impediments to its activities to contend with, and the further fact that the impediments after May 1939 were obviously not very effective - since :t acquired almost half of its holdings as of May 1948 (460,000 out of 936,000 dunums) during this period - the extent of its land acquisitions is hardly impressive.

An interesting and by no means irrelevant question concerns the vendors of land to the JNF. Granott estimates that of total Jewish (including JNF) landownership in 1947, 57 per cent had been purchased from "large Arab landowners," 16 per cent from the "government, churches and foreign companies," and 27 per cent from "the fellahin."5Q However, the only detailed information he provides does not seem to support his estimates. The Statistical Department of the Jewish Agency provided details on former owners of Jewish- owned land as of March 1936. According to this, 52.6 per cent was purchased from "large absentee landowners," 24.6 per cent from "large resident land-

and to prohibit provisions in conveyances, leases and agreements relating to land which stipulate that only members of one race, community or creed may be employed on or about or in connection therewith." 0@.cit., p. 266.

The JNF considered such criticisms unfair and pointed to its motivation: to provide employment for Jewish immigrants and to prevent them from becoming large landowners, hence potential exploiters of the labours of others. Those who made these criticisms, however, were fully cognizant of the motivations of the JNF. They criticized not the motivations but the effects of JNF policies, and as such the criticisms were warranted. In addition it should be noted that ultimately JNF policies derived from the objective of Zionism - to establish in Palestine a state for Jews, and, ideally, exclusively for Jews.

Granott, Land System, p. 278.

THE JEWISH NATIONAL FUND 95

owners," and 13.4 per cent from "various sources" such as the government, churches, and foreign companies, making a total of 90.6 per cent. Thisleaves only 9.4 per cent acquired from small Palestinian Arab farmers, and 40 per cent (25,741 out of 64,201 dunums) of this had been acquired during 1891-1900, i.e., before the JNF was e s t a b l i ~ h e d . ~ ~ thatI t seems fair to conclude, therefore, the JNF was not at all successful in purchasing land from small Palestinian Arab landowners. Nevertheless it was precisely these Palestinians who eventual- ly paid the highest price for JNF efforts to "redeem" the land of Palestine. That they accordingly feel a deep and abiding sense of injustice is surely less than surprising.

At the present time, although the redemption of the land of Palestine envisaged by Schapira some 90 years ago would appear to have been largely completed, it has not been accomplished by the means he foresaw. The JNF deserves only a limited amount of the credit; the largest share of this goes to military conquest, the cost of which in part has been the lives of many, both Arabs and Jews, and the national identity of all Palestinian Arabs.

APPENDIX

JNF LANDACQUISITIONS~~1905- 1950

Year Acquisitions Total Held at E n d of Year

60 OP.cit., p. 277, Table 32. This agrees substantially with the account given by Orni, op. cit., p. 52: Of total land purchases by the Jewish Colonization Association, the Palestine Land Development Co., and the JNF from 1880 to 1935 (JNF purchases included are only to 1930), "about 80 per cent consisted either of large tracts sold mostly by absentee owners... or government concessions ... . Even of the land purchased by individual Jews ...and of that bought by the JNF between 1931 and 1947 ...50 per cent a t least were again large tracts.. . ." Orni concludes (p. 61): "The JNF acquired the great majority of its land, from the outset of its activity and until 1948, from proprietors of large estates whowere in many casesabsentee landlords."

Based on and compiled from JNF sources: JNF-Jen~salem; Orni, ob. cit., p. 62; Granott, Land System, p. 281, and Agrarian Ref3rrn, pp. 28, 107-1 12. All figures are in metric dunums. The total figure for May 1948, and the acquisitions during 1946, 1947, and 1948, appear to be rounded off; if so, I have not been able to obtain the exact figures. The 1949 and 1950 acquisitions were of abandoned land purchased from the Development Authority. Although details arc not avaiiable, the JNF has apparently acquired relatively little land since 1950; Granott, Agrarian Rcjorm, p. 112, states that as of mid-1954 the JNF held "3 112 mil- lion" dunums.

Year Acquisitions Total Held at End of Year

1924

May 1948

1949 1950

1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947

1948

Financing Racism and Apartheid

Jewish National Fund’s Violation of International and Domestic Law

PALESTINE LAND SOCIETY August 2005

1

Synopsis The Jewish National Fund (JNF) is a multi-national corporation with offices in about dozen countries world-wide.

It receives millions of dollars from wealthy and ordinary Jews around the world and other donors, most of which are

tax-exempt contributions. JNF aim is to acquire and develop lands exclusively for the benefit of Jews residing in

Israel.

The fact is that JNF, in its operations in Israel, had expropriated illegally most of the land of 372 Palestinian villages

which had been ethnically cleansed by Zionist forces in 1948. The owners of this land are over half the UN-

registered Palestinian refugees. JNF had actively participated in the physical destruction of many villages, in

evacuating these villages of their inhabitants and in military operations to conquer these villages. Today JNF

controls over 2500 sq.km of Palestinian land which it leases to Jews only. It also planted 100 parks on Palestinian

land.

In addition, JNF has a long record of discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel as reported by the UN.

JNF also extends its operations by proxy or directly to the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the West Bank and

Gaza. All this is in clear violation of international law and particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention which

forbids confiscation of property and settling the Occupiers’ citizens in occupied territories. Ethnic cleansing,

expropriation of property and destruction of houses are war crimes. As well, use of tax-exempt donations in these

activities violates the domestic law in many countries, where JNF is domiciled.

This report compiles the facts about JNF activities, supported by new maps and tables detailing JNF violations of

international and domestic law.

2

List of Contents 1. What is JNF?--------------------------------3 2. Its Objectives--------------------------------3 3. The Land Acquired by JNF in Palestine------------------------4

3.1. During the British Mandate (1920 - 1948)----------------4 3.2. After Creating the State of Israel (1948 - )----------------5 3.3. Early Conflict Between the State and JNF and its Resolution----------------12 3.4. The Demise of the Kibbutz--------15 3.5. Split between ILA and JNF-------------17

4. Illegal Practices of JNF-----------------21

4.1. Ethnic Cleansing and Destruction of Property-----------------21 4.2. Discrimination and Apartheid against the Palestinian Citizens of Israel----------25 4.3. Violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention------------------27 4.4. Violation of Domestic Law where JNF operates outside Israel--------------29

Appendices

1. JNF Offices World-wide------------------------------32

2. List of 372 Palestinian Villages whose land was expropriated by JNF, the registered refugees from these villages and the parks planted on it---------------------------34

Tables

(1) List of Refugee Land ‘Sold’ to JNF in January 1949 (“The First Million”)-----------7

(2) JNF-Usage of the “Second Million” Donums of Refugee Land ‘Purchased’ in 1950-----8

(3) Palestinian Refugee Land Acquired by JNF After 1948---------------------11

(4) Land Usage According to ILA----------13

(5) Palestinian Lands in the Possession of the JNF, 1992-2003---------------------------18

(6) Palestinian Lands in the Possession of the JNF in 2003 according to Region---------18 Maps

1. Approximate Location of Palestinian Land Expropriated by JNF in 1949 and 1950----------------9

2. Affected Village Boundaries by Transfer of its Land to JNF and Location of Parks Planted on it--10

3. Land Acquired and Planted by JNF in the Occupied West Bank and in and around Jerusalem----30

3

1. What is JNF? The Jewish National Fund (JNF) is one of the most prominent Zionist colonization enterprises. At the Zionist

conference held in Katowice in 1884, Professor Zvi Herman Shapira proposed the establishment of a body “that

would redeem the land of Israel from foreigners in order to turn it into a national acquisition that would not be for

sale but would rather be for leasehold only”. At the Fifth Zionist Congress held in Basle in 1901 his proposal was

passed and a declaration was made for the establishment of the “Jewish National Fund” 1. The JNF was established

in April 1907 in England as an instrument of the World Zionist Organization (WZO)2 to acquire and colonize land.

With the enactment of the Israeli JNF Law (1953), which states in clause 6 that it is permitted to set up an

incorporated body in Israel for the continuation of the activities of the existing company that was founded and

incorporated in Europe, JNF was registered as an Israeli company and the English company’s assets were

transferred to it. JNF is held by the state of Israel as a central tool of Judaization.3

Today, JNF has offices worldwide (see Appendix 1). It collects donations from wealthy Jews and others, mostly

tax-exempt, in various countries of domicile. The collected funds are used in Israel for ‘development projects’,

largely on lands illegally expropriated from the Palestinian owners, who are now refugees or Israeli citizens. The

funds are used in pursuit of long-standing policies which practice discrimination and Apartheid and are in violation

of international law as judged by the UN and human rights NGOs.

2. Its Objectives JNF was created to be the colonial arm of WZO; to acquire land in order to establish Jewish colonial settlements in

Palestine. The Hebrew name of the Fund (Keren Kayemeth L’Yisrael or KKL) means ‘Perpetual Fund Capital for

Israel’, a reflection on the daily morning prayer.4 The apparent religious connotations mask the secular and national

objective of the JNF. According to its original Memorandum of Association, its “primary objective” was “to

purchase, take on lease or in exchange, or otherwise acquire any lands, forests, rights of possession and other

rights…in [Palestine, Syria, Sinai, Turkey]…for the purpose of settling Jews on such lands”. The JNF was given

extremely wide powers to develop the land but not to sell it. The Fund can lease the acquired lands to any Jew,

body of Jews and to any company under Jewish control. The lessee or sub-lessee, their heirs, employees, as well as

1 Ehpraim and Menahem Talmi, Zionist Lexicon. Tel Aviv: Ma’ariv Library, 1978, pp.340-342 (Hebrew). 2 The Zionist Organization was founded by Theodor Herzl at the First Zionist Congress in Basle in 1897. In 1960 it was renamed the World Zionist Organization. The goals of the organization were set forth in the Basle Program: “Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Palestine, secured under public law.” [See S. Abu Sitta, Atlas of Palestine 1948. London: Palestine Land Society, 2004] 3 Noga Kadman, “Erased from Space and Consciousness – Depopulated Palestinian Villages in the Israeli-Zionist Discourse” (Master’s thesis in Peace and Development Studies), Dept of Peace and Development research, Goteborg University, November 2001. 4 Walter Lehn and Uri Davis, The Jewish National Fund . London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 1988, p.24.

4

anyone to whom the lease is transferred or mortgaged must be a Jew. Arabs and non-Jews generally, are prohibited

from living or working on JNF land. The JNF holds such lands on behalf of “the Jewish People in perpetuity”.5

3. The Land Acquired by JNF in Palestine

In the spring of 1903 JNF acquired its first parcel of land: 50 acres in Hadera (Khudheira) given as a gift by the

well-known philanthropist Isaac (Yitzhak Leib) Goldberg. By 1905, JNF's land holdings had expanded to include

land near the Sea of Galilee, and at Ben Shemen in the center of Palestine. JNF bought yet another area from the

Zionist movement's Anglo-Palestine Bank, in the center of the country at Hulda (Khulda). The land at Hulda was

bought for a very special purpose: the planting of olive groves in memory of Herzl and with this, JNF embarked on

a new venture: afforestation.

In its first decade of its existence, JNF’s land acquisition was modest. But JNF played a central role in establishing

the first modern Jewish city Tel Aviv, as a suburb of the well-established and ancient Arab city of Jaffa. It acquired

land for the first collective community (known today as kibbutzim) and first workers' community, and constructed

the Yemenite neighborhoods. JNF also set up and administered farms, continued its afforestation programs, and was

instrumental in founding secondary schools and pioneering higher education, an important record of achievement

in Palestine whose Jewish population at the time numbered only 85,000 (9% of the total predominantly Palestinian

population). It was also in this period that JNF set up an experimental agricultural station at Ben Shemen under the

direction of Yitzhak Wilkansky, whose work in mixed farming, or crop diversification, remains the basis of most

Israeli agriculture to this day and which was derived largely from the experience of the (German) Templars.

3.1. During the British Mandate (1920 - 1948): It was due to the British Mandate’s favourable policies to Jewish colonization of Palestine that JNF acquired

considerable areas of land. According to Weitz and Lifshitz, JNF ownership upto December 1944 was 750,154

donums (1 donum = 1000 m²). JNF total ownership in Palestine till May 1948 is 936,000 donums.6

JNF also obtained concessions from the British Mandate in Palestine to develop public lands for a given period. As

an example, in 1934 the Jews inherited a Turkish concession to a large piece of Huleh marsh land (54,000 donums)

from the Mandatory government, on the condition they drain it and make it available for public use. These

concessions expired with the end of the British Mandate. The JNF held rights to shares in mush’a (common) land in

many areas, ranging from 14 to 70 percent of the rights in a given area.7

5 ibid, p.26. 6 ibid, p.70. 7 Meron Benvenisti, Sacred Landscape: The Buried History of the Holy Land. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000, p.129.

5

A reliable estimate of the official total area acquired by Jewish colonization companies in the Mandate period from

1920-1944 is 927,165 donums (1944). With the addition of acquisitions in 1945-46, the final figure of all Jewish-

ownership (JNF and others) in Palestine on the eve of creating the state of Israel is 1,429,062 donums assuming that

the claimed Jewish ownership in the Ottoman period of 454,860 donums is correct.

Thus, of the official area of Palestine of 26,322,999 donums, 24,893,937 donums is Arab Palestinian. Israel

occupied 20,255,000 donums (gradually increased to 20,560,000 donums) of Palestine in the 1948 war. Taking the

lower figure of the occupied area and subtracting Jewish land, it is clear that 18,825,938 donums is Palestinian

land, that is, 93% of Israel’s area. This is the land of the Palestinians, both refugees and citizens of Israel8, now

under the control of Israel Land Administration (ILA).

3.2. After Creating the State of Israel (1948 - )9: As early as the beginning of February 1948, two months prior to the commencement of the takeover of Arab

villages, David Ben-Gurion told JNF leaders: The war will give us the land. Concepts of ‘ours’ and ‘not ours’ are

peace-time concepts only, and they lose their meaning during war.10

In a similar vein, he asked Yosef Weitz (1890-197), Director of JNF Lands Department/Development Division,

whether the JNF was ready to buy ‘from him’ land at P£25 a donum. To which Weitz replied that they will buy if

the land is Arab owned and if they receive the deed of property and possession. Of course, he could not provide it.

On May 13, 1948, just before the state of Israel was declared, Ben Gurion offered to ‘sell’ a massive 2 million

donums of land to the JNF for £0.5 per donum. He was trying to sell land his forces did not yet occupy to raise

money for arms.

In July 1948, some JNF officials floated a proposal by which the JNF would buy “surplus land” in the abandoned

(i.e. depopulated) villages. JNF officials believed that any Palestinian refugee families allowed to return could

survive on smaller estates than they previously had tilled through the use of “modern”, intensive Jewish farming

techniques. “Excess land” was that portion of village farmland deemed to be in excess of what this new, intensive

agriculture would require. The idea was dropped when JNF officials felt assured that they could prevent the return

of the refugees and take their property without the penalty of international law.

As Israeli conquest of Palestine proceeded and inhabitants expelled, more Palestinian land became available to JNF.

Some of the first JNF acquisitions of refugee land were leases it obtained. On August 16, 1948, the JNF established

8 Abu Sitta, supra note 2. 9 This section is extracted from Michael R. Fischbach, Records of Dispossession, Palestinian Refugee Property and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. New York: Columbia University Press, 2003. 10 Benvenisti, supra note 7, p.120.

6

a Subcommittee for the Cultivation and Maintenance of Abandoned Lands to manage such properties. Thirteen

days later, the JNF formally requested to lease 193,500 donums of ‘abandoned’ land from the Ministry of

Agriculture. In November 1948, it leased 154,000 donums for one year from the Ministry of Agriculture. The JNF

then sublet the land to Jewish colonies. It continued to lease land into 1949, “ordering” land on one-year leases

from the Israeli authority established to control the property of dispossessed refugees, which was named: the

Custodian of Absentee Property’s Villages Section, according to a settlement map prepared by the Jewish Agency’s

Settlement Department. Weitz continued to press for expanded JNF control over refugee property. He wanted legal

JNF ownership of the land, not merely leases. He was anxious to open up the lands for Jewish immigrants, and

expressed his impatience shortly after the JNF acquired its first refugee land from the state in 1949:

Of the entire area of the State of Israel only about 300,000-400,000 donums…are state domain which the Israeli government took over from the mandatory regime. The JNF and private Jewish owners possess under two million donums. Almost all the rest belongs at law to Arab owners, many of whom have left the country. The fate of these Arabs will be settled when the terms of the peace treaties between Israel and her Arab neighbours are finally drawn up. The JNF, however, cannot wait until then to obtain the land it requires for its pressing needs [settlement of new immigrants]. It is, therefore, acquiring part of the land abandoned by the Arab owners, through the government of Israel, the sovereign authority in Israel.11

JNF was free to discriminate against Arabs in favour of Jews. Its charter mandated that all land that it purchased

would be “inalienable”, i.e. to be held by the JNF on behalf of the Jewish people in perpetuity. Because the JNF

could not sell land it acquired, it leased land to Jewish settlements and individual Jews on the condition that it would

not be re-let to non Jews and that only Jewish labour be used on the land - the policy of ‘Hebrew labour’.

JNF felt strongly that refugee land should not merely be expropriated but duly purchased. This was to sever the

refugees’ legal title to the land forever. A November 1948 article in Karnenu (“Our Fund”), the organ of the JNF

head office in Jerusalem, noted that: “the [JNF] will compensate owners of land which will be required for public

development, and any land passing from private Arab ownership to the Jewish National Fund will be paid for”. The

article stated that since the JNF could not actually pay the refugees, the compensation funds would be deposited

with the Israeli government, which “will act as trustee holding such funds against legitimate claims of Arab owners

whether they remain abroad or return”. What JNF really needed was a reasonable legal cover for the division of

spoils between JNF and the state of Israel.

JNF said it dispatched two men who served on the Committee for Abandoned Arab Property to Paris to seek out

refugees interested in selling their land in Israel. But Israeli cabinet ordered JNF to stop buying land directly from

Palestinians.

11 Lehn and Davis, supra note 4, p. 132, p. 347, fn 385.

7

Following the UN Resolution 194 of 11 December 1948, which endorsed the refugees’ right of return, Ben Gurion

told Weitz and Danin on 18 December 1948 that “the JNF would buy land only from the State. There was no need

to buy land from Arabs”.

One month after Ben Gurion told Weitz not to buy land directly from Palestinians, the two sides finally concluded a

major deal by which the JNF would ‘purchase’ 1 million donums of refugee land for £I 11 million (£I = Israeli Lira

= £P = Palestinian pound = Sterling £ pound = $4.03) on 27 January 1949, although the actual price, payable in

installments, would be determined by a joint state-JNF committee and would vary according to location and type of

land. In addition, the JNF agreed to pay an additional £I 7,250,000 to the state and the Jewish Agency to assist in

settling immigrants on the land. The JNF insisted that the land be legally transferred to it within one year of signing

the contract in order to assure the JNF right of ownership.

Region Dunams Jerusalem corridor 2,000 Northern Negev desert 250,000 Coastal Plain 150,000 Sharon Plain 150,000 Sub TOTAL 552,000 Incl. Hula Baysin and near Baysan 1,101,942 Source: Granott Agrarian Reform, pp. 107-111

Table 1: List of Refugee Land ‘Sold’ to JNF in January 1949 (“The First Million”)

However JNF’s report to the 23rd congress of the WZO in 1951 stated the amount at 1,109,7769 donums: 1,085,607

(rural) and 24,162 (urban).

American Jews were crucial in providing funds with which the JNF could ‘purchase’ land. Between 1910 and mid-

1948, American Jews donated, through United Jewish Appeal, a total of $85,760,732. British, Canadian and South

African Jews contributed a further $9 million.

An unlikely source of vital funding was provided by American banks. The Bank of America National Trust and

Saving Association of San Francisco gave JNF a loan of $15 million. The Bank of America provided the loan on

June 9, 1949. It is unusual for a bank to extend a loan for a British entity (JNF) to establish settlements in a foreign

country (Israel) on a land that neither JNF nor Israel legally own.

Execution of the deal with the state and the JNF’s usage of the land took some time. Between signing the deal on

January 27, 1949 until March 31, 1954, the state had legally transferred only 35.9 percent of the land, or 396,149

8

donums. For its part, the JNF had put only 770,271 donums of the land it ‘bought’ in completely depopulated

villages to use by the end of 1952.

A second sale was finalized on October 4, 1950 involving the transfer of an additional 1,271,734 donums by the

Custodian of Absentee Property on behalf of the Development Authority to the JNF, 99.8 percent of which

(1,271,480 donums) was rural land. Granott later placed the amount at 1,278,200 donums. The amount of £I 66

million was said to have been paid over a ten year period. There are claims that the JNF never actually paid the

amounts it owed under the two deals.

Usage Donums

Completing construction of new settlements 500,000 Expanding existing settlements 500,000 Afforestation 160,000 Various agricultural purposes 100,000 Settlement housing 16,200 Urban housing 2,000 TOTAL 1,278,200 Source: Granott Agrarian Reform, pp. 108, 111

Table 2: JNF-Usage of the “Second Million” Donums of

Refugee Land ‘Purchased’ in 1950

Map 1 shows the approximate location of the Palestinian land transferred to JNF through a fictitious sale agreement

conducted in 1949 and 1950 with the Israeli government which seized the refugee property. Map 2 shows the

transferred land and the location of 100 JNF parks planted over it. Appendix 2 gives a list of 372 depopulated

Palestinian villages whose land (5,687,342 donums) has been wholly or partially taken over by JNF. The Appendix

also gives the number of the registered refugees from these villages which amounts to 2,191,556 refugees in exile or

54% of UN-registered refugees. Also, shown in the Appendix are the names of the parks planted on the village sites

by JNF, National Parks Authority or both.

9

Source: Arnon Golan, The Acquisition of Arab Land by Jewish Settlement in the War of Independence, Catedra (in Hebrew), Vol. 63, 1992, pp. 122-154.

Map 1: Approximate Location of Palestinian Land Expropriated by JNF in 1949 and 1950

10

Source: Noga Kadman, “Erased from Space and Consciousness – Depopulated Palestinian Villages in the Israeli-Zionist Discourse” (Master’s thesis in Peace and Development Studies), Dept of Peace and Development research, Goteborg University, November 2001.

Map 2: Affected Village Boundaries by Transfer of its Land to JNF and Location of Parks Planted on it

11

Table 3 gives the regional location of refugee land similarly transferred to JNF. It is of interest to examine the location of these lands in order to shed light on the reasons for Ben Gurion’s choice of these particular locations.

Granott Israel Palestine Region according to Granott Area

(donums) Sub District Name Measured

(donums) Sub District Name Measured

(donums) Judea + Jerusalem Corridor 819,127 Jerusalem 299,900 Jerusalem 141,646Safad region 162,813 Safad 129,765 Safad 144,526Tiberias region 57,414 Tiberias 46,659 Tiberias 31,048Nazareth + Baysan + Jenin region 151,251 Nazareth 337,865 Nazareth 65,406 Baysan 95,877 Jenin 91,990 Nablus 4,368Acre region 150,657 Acre 175,210 Acre 169,631Haifa region 250,967 Haifa 21,959 Haifa 216,915Coastal Plain 204,667 Hadera 113,960 Tulkarm 191,207Sharon Plain 205,342 Sharon 130,184 Ramla 142,964 Ramle 290,357 Petah Tiqva 129,104 Jaffa 28,343 Rehovot 69,581 Northern Negev 352,850 Northern Negev 392,433 Gaza 340,798 Hebron 184,777 Central Negev 430,308 Beer Sheba 423,001 Total Measured 2,419,893 Total Measured 2,419,893Urban land 18,589 Urban 18,589 Urban 18,589

Granott figure 2,373,677 Net (excl. Urban) 2,401,304 Net (excl. Urban) 2,401,304 Measured/

Granott Ratio 101.164% Measured/

Granott Ratio 101.164%

Notes: Granott regions do not always match Palestine or Israel Sub-districts Source for Granott: Granott Agrarian Reform, p.111 cited in Michael Fischbach, Records of Dispossession, Columbia University Press, 2003, Table 1.26: Location and Prices of Land in 1949 and 1950 Purchases of Refugee Property by the Jewish National Fund, p. 67. Source for the measurements in Map 1: Arnon Golan, The Acquisition of Arab Land by Jewish Settlement in the War of Independence, Catedra (in Hebrew), Vol. 63, 1992, pp. 122-154.

Table 3: Palestinian Refugee Land Acquired By JNF After 1948

In December 1948 / January 1949, the Israelis achieved military victory in the south against the Egyptian front,

defending that part of Palestine. No military progress was achieved in the centre of the country against the

Jordanian front. Thus land was transferred liberally to JNF in the south. In the centre, the transferred land was an

extension of the existing Mandate-period JNF land. In the north, newly acquired JNF land is small and was

intended to fill gaps next to River Jordan and in Ijzim inside the triangle south of Haifa which refused to surrender

for weeks. It is remarkable that Ben Gurion did nor offer any land in the above three regions outside the Partition

Line, as he expected Israel to be forced to withdraw till this line. At this time no Armistice Agreement was signed

with any Arab country. Israel occupied 24% of Palestine in excess of UN resolution 181 to divide the country (78%

to Armistice Line against 54% to Partition Line). The only exception of confiscated land outside the Partition Line

is a large area west of Jerusalem in the so called Tel Aviv – Jerusalem corridor which Israel occupied in defiance of

UN resolution 181. To defeat this resolution, Ben Gurion transferred the conquered Palestinian land in this corridor

to JNF, a foreign Jewish entity.

12

By October 1950, Israel signed Armistice Agreements with all neighbouring Arab countries and managed to scuttle

Lausanne negotiations in which Arabs offered peace treaty with Israel provided the refugees return to their homes.

Ben Gurion had no reason for restraint. The second batch transferred to JNF was adjacent to JNF holding in all

areas upto the Armistice Line in the central sector, including Lydda and Ramle (which were to be Arab in the

Partition Plan). In the north, he transferred to JNF a large area near the Lebanon border, east of Acre and all

Saffuriya land but left central Galilee. (Galilee was to be Arab in the Partition Plan). In the south, JNF acquired

liberally further land but remained mostly within the Partition Plan, probably because Ben Gurion felt the small

Gaza Strip, crowded with expelled refugees, had to be expanded in a new round of negotiations.

The two sales trebled the amount of land the JNF owned – by 1956, 68 percent of all JNF land consisted of the land

bought in the two sales. By the mid-1950s, 577 of 698 Jewish agricultural settlements in Israel (82.7 percent) had

been built on JNF new land, while 80 percent of all agricultural produce was grown on its land.

By 1958, almost all of the land had been transferred by the State to the JNF. The government’s official yearbook

stated the effect of the two sales on the office of the Custodian of Absentee Property:

The transfer of land to the Jewish National Fund marks the beginning of a process, the main object of which is to convert the activities of the Custodian from temporary activities – as they appeared at first to be – to a systematic restoration [sic] of property at his disposal in order to make it an instrument for the development of the country [for Jews only].12 Emphasis […] added.

Thus, the JNF ‘owned’ 17 percent of the surface area of the state, an increase of 13% after the creation of Israel.

This included 39 percent of cultivable land and 23.1 percent of Jewish-owned land in the cities.

3.3. Early Conflict between the State and JNF and its Resolution In the first decade after the creation of Israel, a legal quarrel ensued between the JNF and the new Israeli

government. JNF had been purchasing land in the Mandate period in the name of “the Jewish people”. Israel’s

government seized Palestinian land and intended to acquire title to it in the name of the state in recognition of “the

triumph of the Haganah and the flight of the Arabs”13. The JNF maintained that such land should be turned over to

the Jewish people, not the state, since the latter, given the prevailing political and demographic conditions, cannot

give adequate guarantee of lasting Jewish ownership. JNF was not confident that the state of Israel could last or

could resist international pressure to withdraw from conquered Arab land.

The dispute was settled by formulating, on 25 July 1960, the laws: Basic Law: Israel-Lands, Israel-Lands Law and

Israel-Lands Administration Law, that is, on behalf of Israel government, not the Jewish people. The JNF rules, of

12 Fischbach, supra note 8, p.68. 13 Lehn and Davis, supra note 4, p.108.

13

restricting transactions to Jews only, have been adopted by the state of Israel, whether for the Palestinian land that

was transferred to JNF or that seized by the state. This land would now be administered by a single authority, Israel

Land Administration (ILA), (Heb: Minhal Mekarke’ei Yisra’el), for the benefit of both parties under the old JNF

rules. Two policymaking councils were created that were made up of representatives of both the state and the JNF.

The first was the Israel Lands Council, in which the state held the majority of the thirteen seats. The second was the

Land Reclamation and Development Council, in which the JNF held the majority. The agreements also created two

administrative councils: the Israel Lands Administration, with a state majority, and the Land Development

Administration, with a JNF majority.

The position of land “title” in 1961 became as follows:

Authority Area (donums)

State and Development Authority 15,205,000 JNF (pre Mandate + “purchase” from the State) 3,570,000 [Israel-lands total:] 18,775,000 Private 1,480,000 TOTAL 20,255,000 Source: ILA Report, Jerusalem 1962, in Hebrew, quoted by Lehn, p. 114.

Table 4: Land Usage According to ILA

Thus, ILA administers 92.7% of Israel, which is Palestinian property. Of the 20,255,000 donums in this area, the

ILA classifies 4,200,000 as agricultural land, of which 2,790,000 donums (66 percent) are considered Israel-lands;

virtually all (97.8 percent) of the latter are under lease to collective and smallholder settlements, whose members are

exclusively Jewish.14

On 28 November 1961 the Covenant “between the State of Israel, represented for this purpose by the Minister of

Finance, and the JNF – with the sanction of the WZO – represented for this purpose by the chairman of the Board of

Directors of the JNF” was signed. It is the document that has dictated the manner of the JNF’s operation in Israel. 15

Clause 3 states:

“The government of Israel and Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael [JNF] have resolved to end the duplication resulting from the administration of their lands by different agencies, to concentrate the administration, conservation and care of these lands in the hands of the state. All the lands of the JNF and the state lands will be administered by one body, the ILA that will be set up for this purpose and that will administer the lands for the JNF and will transfer to it the revenues from the lessees and tenants”.

14 ibid, p.114, fn 256. 15 David Blougrund, “The Jewish National Fund”, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, Policy Studies No. 49, September 2001.

14

Clause 4 states:

“The lands of Israel will be managed in accordance with the law, that is to say in accordance with the principle that land is not sold but rather only leased, and in accordance with the land policy that will be set by the council…the council will set the land policy with the goal of increasing the ability of the land to absorb [settlers] and to prevent the concentration of land in the hands of individuals”.

Clause 6 states:

“Any transaction concerning Israeli lands will be handled by the ILA in the name of the registered owners of such lands and serving as agents, and all the fruits of those lands are the property of the registered owners, and the state accepts upon itself, in exchange for this agreement, to bear the costs of the administration”.

Thus the agreement stipulates that “the lands controlled by the ILA shall be administered according to the principles

of the JNF, which means: a Jew has a right to receive land or an apartment on land controlled by the Administration,

but a non-Jew does not enjoy this right, unless the apartment or plot of land is located in the special ‘zone of

residence’ assigned to non-Jews, and where non-Jews are permitted to apply for an apartment or land”.16 The latter

refers to areas reserved for non-Jews in the Apartheid system. In any case, the provision was cosmetic and rarely

exercised

With few exceptions, these lands were leased to Jewish tenants (Kibbutz and Moshav). None of these tenants has

title to the leased land. According to these leases, the land would revert to the state or the JNF should its use be

changed. After all, the justification for the confiscation of the land from its absent Arab owners was that it was

needed for purposes of agricultural settlement and development. The land was not regarded as real estate but as the

property of the ‘Jewish People’, and its “redemption” through the labour of Jewish cultivators was perceived as a

spiritual obligation no less than as an economic necessity.17

The lease term is 49 years, the first term expired in 1998 and was renewed thereafter. The Israeli ‘farmers’

numbered in 1998 about 154,000 Jews (2.7% of Israel’s population) and they were thus able to control the land of

4,500,000 refugees.

However, establishment of a single government body to deal with all aspects of the administration of over 90

percent of the land in pre-1967 Israel, efficient though it may be, has meant creation of a system vulnerable to

abuse. Former Director of the ILA General (Reserves) Ya’aqov (Aqnin) says he does not know of any other state

governed by a democratic regime that ‘owns’ such a large area of the lands of its territory as does the State of Israel.

16 Lehn and Davis, supra note 4, pp.116-117. 17 Benvenisti, supra note 7, p.188.

15

3.4. The Demise of the Kibbutz In the period 1948 - 1967, Israel left these lands, leased to Kibbutz and Moshav, with minimum interference

pending the peace settlement with the Arabs. Following 1967 War, Israel felt emboldened and introduced a set of

laws (e.g. expropriating ‘mewat’ land as State land) which made the restitution of these lands by Palestinians more

difficult according to Israeli law.

Following the ill-fated Oslo Agreement in 1993 and the evident weakness of Palestine National Authority (PNA), a

frenzy of land grabbing in the Palestine Occupied Territories (the West Bank and Gaza), engineered by Ariel

Sharon and Lieutenant General Rafael Eitan in the early nineties, using the vehicles of Ministry of Agriculture and

Ministry of National Infrastructures, started in earnest.

Inside Israel, the Kibbutz became loaded with debts. Only 26% of the settlements were viable, producing 75% of

the produce. They consumed 75% of the water in Israel at a subsidized rate (80% of production cost). With such

vast resources of land, water and subsidies they produced only 1.8% of Israel’s GDP. The accumulated debts

incurred by the Kibbutz were carried over by the government. Out of $5 billion debt, the government wrote off $2

billion, retabled $2 billion and asked the private sector to contribute $1 billion.

With the abject failure of kibbutz, as an ideology and an economic engine, kibbutz farmers were allowed to own and

build on a portion of the land leased to them. In return for the use of ‘their land’, they would be compensated

generously for not less than 20% of this land. In essence, permission had been granted to the kibbutzim and

moshavim to ‘purchase’ the land they had been leasing, and then to enter into real estate transactions with

entrepreneurs and contractors.

Ordinance 533, later replaced by 611, which was enacted when Sharon was Minister of Housing, gave the farmers

the best deal. As Russian immigrants began pouring in, housing was needed, and it was convenient to direct them

to the near-empty Southern District and mainly-Arab Northern District.

The kibbutz farmers were given an extra incentive. They were allowed to buy back the land for 15% of the

compensation value they received for it. They were thus transformed from bankrupt farmers with outdated ideology

to rich ‘farmers’ who owned a lot of real estate. The sudden wealth of the farmers aroused criticism of traditional

Zionists, such as JNF, who insisted that the acquired Palestinian land should remain the property of “the Jewish

People everywhere in perpetuity”. Sale to individuals, they say, may encourage some to sell land back to Arabs. In

the mid-nineties, Jewish extremists at Lydda terrorized a Jewish neighbour who sold his villa to a Palestinian Israeli

family.

16

To resolve this dispute, series of ordinances were passed (640 and 727) and finally a committee headed by Prof.

Boaz Ronen was formed to determine the land percentage, the mechanism and procedure of selling Palestinian land

leased by ILA to kibbutz farmers. In June 1997, the recommendations of the committee were approved. As a

result, ‘ownership’ of 600,000 apartments would be transferred from the State Custodian to the tenants.

The Israeli government, through ILA, earned $700 million in 1997 alone for its share in the sale proceedings. (This

sale of a small portion of Palestinian land shows the fallacy of Israel’s argument that the whole of Palestinian land

and property are not worth more than $300 million if compensation is to be paid).

In 1997, National Infrastructure Minister Ariel Sharon planned to build 50,000 housing units; 30,000 have been

sold, 3,130 remain unsold, the rest is in various stages of tendering. It is noteworthy that the first stage of

construction is designed to break the Palestinian monolithic continuity in Israel by building around Arab towns such

as Umm al Fahm, Nazareth, Shafa Amr and Taibah.

In 1998, 110 kibbutzim were allowed to expand their residential area (i.e., changing their zoning from agriculture to

residential) by 115% which can be sold to others. ‘Others’ means any Jew living anywhere, not necessarily Israeli.

150,000 residential units were planned in the kibbutzim, out of a general plan for 500,000.

Ariel Sharon, who expropriated for himself a farm of several thousand donums south of Iraq Al Manshiya (Kiryat

Gat), said:

“… The only way to absorb the immigrants was by taking land from the Kibbutz... I knew the (economic) hardship they are experiencing… it is better they build on the land and sell houses…”

In mid-June 2000, 52 members of the Israeli Knesset, representing an odd coalition, voted in favour of two bills

allowing the sale of “Israel’s land reserves” (i.e. refugees’ land), to the kibbutz and moshav, at a price less than half

the land value. Those in turn can sell it to building contractors. The Israel Land Administration (ILA) shall

therefore change the designation of these lands from agriculture to building plots.

Moreover, construction of the long-planned 300 km $2 billion Trans-Israel Highway started. In February 1998,

contract was signed with a large Canadian-Israeli consortium to build it. This highway runs inland parallel to the

coast. It starts in Galilee and ends in Beer Sheba. It cuts across the Palestinian population concentrations in

Galilee, the Little Triangle and Negev. It serves the interests of the ‘Star’ plan concocted by Sharon to break and

expropriate lands of Palestinian citizens of Israel, to prevent Israel’s return to the 1967 Armistice Line and to

provide housing for Russian immigrants in Arab areas in Israel.

17

3.5. Split between ILA and JNF The agreement between JNF and ILA for the exploitation of the pre-Mandate Jewish land (7% of Israel’s area) and

of the confiscated Palestinian land (93%) served well both organizations for almost 40 years.

However, with the demise of the kibbutz which led to the call for selling the leased land to Israeli farmers and with

the charges against ILA for discrimination against non-Jewish citizens of Israel, it became necessary to split the

expropriated Palestinian land between the state of Israel and JNF. The land held by the state is subject to charges of

discrimination against non-Jewish (Palestinian) citizens. The land held by JNF is presumed to belong to “the

Jewish people in perpetuity”. Holding it under JNF control would therefore keep it out of reach from both the

Palestinian citizens of Israel and the Palestinian refugees who own most of this land. The government formed

Gadish Committee to resolve this conflict about land exploitation.

The Gadish Committee, headed by the late Mr. Yaacov Gadish, was established on 2 May 2004 by Ministry of

Industry, Trade and Labour Ehud Olmart, with the aim of investigating essential ‘reforms’ to the ILA. The mandate

of the committee states that the committee was instructed to “define the main operational aims of the ILA with

regards to the ILA’s structure and modes of operation”. The draft of the principal recommendations included18:

• The full transfer of urban residential land ownership rights to private owners of apartments and buildings, with

the aim of eliminating the need of property owners to have dealings with the ILA.

• Streamlining the arrangement and registration process with regard to land ownership rights.

• Introducing a uniform property policy regarding land in Israel (policy concerning state-owned land, the

Development Authority, and the Jewish National Fund).

• Increasing transparency and reducing the complications associated with policy on real-estate-related issues.

The Committee received recommendations for an exchange of lands via this process of separation between the state

and the JNF, according to which the JNF would concede lands in towns in the central region of Israel to the state in

exchange for lands in the ‘National Priority Areas’ i.e. Galilee and Negev.

On 9 December 2004, JNF responded to petitions submitted by Adalah19 and the Association for Civil Rights in

Israel (ACRI) to the Supreme Court in October 2004, against ILA, JNF and others. In its petition, Adalah

demanded that the Court cancel an ILA policy and a regulation, both of which prevent Arab citizens of Israel from

bidding in tenders for the allocation of JNF-owned lands. The petition argued that the ILA’s policy is incompatible

with the principle of equality, as it discriminates on the basis of nationality.

18 Press Release dated 16 May 2005, Israeli Ministry of Finance, www.mof.gov.il. 19 Adalah Newsletter, Vol. 6, October 2004, www.adalah.org/newsletter/eng/oct04/2.php.

18

Year Dunams 1992 2,339,000 1997 2,409,000 1999 2,459,000 2000 2,542,000 2001 2,548,000 2002 2,550,000 2003 2,555,000

Source: Adalah, Vol. No. 6, October 2004

Table 5: Palestinian Lands in the possession of the JNF, 1992-2003 (excluding the original 936,000 d. pre 1948)

Region Dunams

Jerusalem 508,000 The North 1,031,000 Haifa 207,000 The Center 403,000 Tel Aviv 24,000 The South 382,000 TOTAL 2,555,000

Source: Adalah, Vol. No. 6, October 2004

Table 6: Palestinian Lands in the possession of the JNF in 2003 according to region

In its response, the JNF claimed to have purchased the lands within its ownership from ‘previous owners’ using

money donated by Jews from around the world, for the purpose of buying land in Israel and its distribution among

Jews. JNF further argued that its loyalty is only to the Jewish people, not to the general public in Israel, and that it

operates only for the benefit of Jews. This argument is not legally valid. JNF knew from the outset that the

presumed sale is illegal. The Israeli writer and former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem after 1967, Meron Benvenisti,

wrote,

The heads of the JNF were well aware that the sale [of over 2 million donums in 1949 and 1950] was not legal; it was important to them, however, to establish the fact that their organization would continue to serve as the institution holding title to the land holdings of the Jewish people and to develop them for settlement purposes. They insisted that the government of Israel undertake “to make all the (future) legal arrangements such that this land would be registered as being fully under JNF ownership in conformity with the laws of the State of Israel”…The distinction between the purchase of property from Arab landowners who were willing to sell – as had been the case during the British Mandate – and the acquisition of “redeemed land” from the state was blurred. Thus the land of dispossessed Arabs became the property of the Jewish people, subject to JNF regulations prohibiting its being leased to non-Jews; in this way a principle was established enshrining discrimination between the Jewish citizens of Israel and its Arab citizens, from whose displaced compatriots the land had been confiscated (or “purchased”) without their being entitled to any compensation at all…20

20 Benvenisti, supra note 7,p.177.

19

JNF’s claim that the acquired land is legally bought is questioned by an international law opinion,

“The central question in these defences [JNF purchase of land from the state if Israel] is whether the Israeli individuals or institutions can be said to have acted in good faith, which means it is critical to establish whether Israelis knew, or should have known, that they were improperly taking refugee property… Although Israeli law facilitated private use of confiscated Palestinian land, Israelis should have notice from the beginning that such land transfers were not valid under international law, even if the property passes to third parties… In the Israeli context, purchasers in many cases could have noticed, if they wanted to, that they were acquiring land that rightly belongs to Palestinian refugees.”21

In its correspondence with Adalah, the ILA had acknowledged that tenders for JNF lands are open only to Jews.

According to the ILA, the reason for this policy is that it must uphold the agreement signed between the state of

Israel and JNF in 1961, under which it is obliged to respect the objectives of the JNF: “To purchase, acquire on

lease or in exchange, etc… in… the state of Israel in any area within the jurisdiction of the Government of Israel or

any part thereof, for the purpose of settling Jews on such lands and properties.” ILA maintained that respecting

this agreement does not amount to discrimination against Palestinian citizens in Israel.22 This policy was recently

challenged in the Israeli High Court of Justice, on the grounds that the ILA, as a state organization, is not allowed to

discriminate between Jews and non-Jews.

Accordingly, a new agreement was reached to sever or limit the relation between ILA and JNF. From 2005, it was

proposed that JNF lands will be available to Jews and non-Jews alike though the ILA will compensate the JNF with

substitute land for any plot purchased by a non-Jew. This allows the JNF to maintain its current hold over 2.5

million donums of land, the land acquired in the 1949/50 fictitious sale, confirming JNF as an institution which

publicly acknowledges that its land policy is discriminatory.”23

On 15 June 2005, an understanding was reached between Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Industry, Trade

and Employment Ehud Olmert and JNF Board Chairman Yehiel Leket wherein JNF retains ownership of 13% of

Israel’s state lands. In exchange for its municipal lands JNF will receive comparable state lands in the Negev,

Galilee and other areas. As a private organization, JNF would be free to continue its Jews-only land policy as it

seeks to settle 250,000 Jews in the Negev in the next five to ten years and 100,000 Jews in existing Jewish

communities in the Galilee, according to fund officials.

21 Michael Kagan, “Do Israeli Right Conflict with the Right of Return?” (A Working Paper), Badil Resource Centre, 2005. 22 Adalah Newsletter, Vol. 8, December 2004, www.adalah.org/newsletter/eng/dec04/5.php. 23 Adalah Newsletter Vol. 9, January 2005.

20

The following are the main points of the agreement reached24:

(1) JNF will transfer to the state ownership assets to which residential building and employment rights were allotted

(tourism, industry and commerce) on non-agricultural lands. In exchange, the state will transfer tracts to JNF

lands, mostly in the Negev and some in Galilee, as well as in other places, identical to the areas transferred by

JNF.

(2) Furthermore, the state will transfer to JNF the financial value of the lands transferred by JNF, minus the

financial value of the lands JNF receives. The calculation of land and financial values will be made by actuaries

on both sides, and in the case of disagreement, the attorney general will decide.

(3) Should the process of valuations extend beyond the agreed time, the state will transfer to JNF a prepayment in

the scope of NIS 500 million (about $100 million) in five equal annual payments of NIS 100 million per annum.

(4) A Coordinating Committee will be established alongside the ILA Board including equal representation of the

state of Israel and JNF. Its chairman will be the Minster in charge (Board Chairman) and his deputy will be

JNF Board Chairman. The coordinating committee will be empowered to deliberate ad hoc matters related to

JNF as well as subjects which in JNF’s opinion affect its lands and on which there is agreement between the

minister in charge (Board Chairman) and JNF Board Chairman.

(5) In furtherance, JNF representation on the ILA Board will be adjusted to JNF’s relative share of land

administered by the ILA.

The land to be swapped, which is located along the Mediterranean coast and in developed urban areas, is much

more valuable than the land JNF will be receiving. The Israel Land Authority will pay JNF the difference in value –

about $220 million, as a compensation for the confiscated Palestinian property, an ill-gotten gain.

In the proposed land swap between JNF and the state of Israel, JNF enters into fraudulent practices once again.

First it sells land in the centre of the country, part of which is Palestinian land, which it never legally owned, for

enormous sums of money, many times more the meager amount it has paid the state, if indeed payment was made.

Second it plans to establish Jewish settlements for Jews only on Palestinian land in Galilee and Negev with the

purpose of depriving Palestinian citizens of Israel, from the use of this land without being exposed to the charge of

discrimination against non-Jews.

Third, in the Negev, JNF already acts in collusion with the state of Israel, through the notoriously brutal “Green

Patrol”, in confiscating the property of Palestinians, demolishing their houses, desecrating their mosques and

destroying their crops by spraying their fields with toxics.

24 Press Release of KKL-JNF (16 June 2005), “KKL-JNF scores a major victory: 13% of Israel’s state lands to remain in KKL-JNF ownership”, www.kkl.org.il.

21

Fourth, JNF acts in violation of international law by building Jewish settlements on the refugees’ land contrary to

UN resolutions which call for the return of the refugees and the protection of their property.

4. Illegal Practices of JNF From the early months of 1948 to this day, JNF has followed illegal practices in violation of international law and

certain domestic laws where it operates. These can fall in the following categories:

4.1. Ethnic Cleansing and Destruction of Property According to the Nuremberg Charter, War Crimes are defined as:

Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

JNF had followed systematically in 1948, and thereafter, practices which fall in the above prohibited categories.

Quite early, before the 1948 hostilities in Palestine began, JNF conspired with the Israeli “military experts” to

conquer, evacuate, and settle new Jewish immigrants in Palestinian villages,

In the period preceding the 1948 War, almost all of the new settlements were established in response to decisions by the Jewish political leadership, based on plans drawn by military experts. The role of the settlement agencies (JNF, the Jewish Agency, and the settlement movements) was reduced to determination of the exact locations for new settlements and allocation of resources...[JNF] Committees actively engaged in settlement planning early in the war laid out a plan calling for the establishment of more than a hundred new settlements intended to absorb 1 million or 1.5 million new immigrants in the space of three years…25

At the time it was impossible to accommodate this number of new immigrants when Jewish control of the land did

not exceed 5% of Palestine. Obviously the only way to achieve the objective of absorbing one and a half million

immigrants was to seize Palestinian villages and ethnically cleansing them. This is what actually happened.

Yosef Weitz, director of the JNF’s Land Department and a key land-purchasing and settlement executive, a man

described as “the originator and indefatigable champion of state seizure of Arab land”26, wrote about his ethnic

cleansing (Transfer) plan27 as early as 20 December 194028,

25 Benvenisti, supra note 7, p.119. 26 ibid, p.171. 27 For full details of the Zionist’s Transfer policy over several decades, see Nur Masalha, Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of Transfer in Zionist Political Thought, 1882-1948. Washington, DC: Institute of Palestine Studies, Washington DC, 1992; Nur Masalha, A Land without a People: Israel, Transfer and the Palestinians. London: Faber and Faber, 1997; Nur Masalha, The Politics of Denial: Israel and the Palestinian Refugee Problem. London: Pluto Press, 2003; and, Nur Masalha, An Israeli Plan to Transfer Galilee's Christians to South America: Yosef Weitz and 'Operation Yohanan' 1949-1953, Center for Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, University of Durham, Occasional Paper No.55, 1996. 28 Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, p.54.

22

If the Arabs leave it, the country will become wide and spacious for us…The only solution [after World War II ends] is a Land of Israel, at least a western Land of Israel [i.e., Palestine], without Arabs. There is no room here for compromises…There is no way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries, to transfer all of them, save few.

JNF pursued relentlessly its plans of ethnic cleansing,

Josef Weitz of the JNF…pushed hardest for Israel to get rid of the Arabs and take possession of their land…This man had worked for the expulsion of the Arabs with a zeal that his superiors tried to restrain. Despite that, he succeeded in mobilizing people and institutions to implement both “retroactive transfer” and the transfer that he himself had initiated…29

The well-known Israeli historian, Benny Morris, wrote how JNF officials started carrying out their ethnic cleansing

operations,30

Weitz was not merely the voice of the Jewish settlements; he was an executive, an initiator of thinking and policy. After meeting with JNF officials in the North, Weitz jotted in his diary (Jan 1948):

“Is not now the time to be rid of them [he was referring specifically to Palestinian tenant farmers in Yoqne’am and Daliyat ar Ruha]? Why continue to keep in our midst these horns at a time when they pose a danger to us? Our people are considering [solutions].”

JNF, through their great influence, directed the Israeli military operations for the conquest of Palestine, even before

the British Mandate ended and before the state of Israel was declared,

[Weitz] pressured the army “to evacuate Butaymat” (a village situated to the south of the village of Kafrayn), which had been occupied and destroyed. Butaymat’s land was important to him because the JNF held 60 percent of the musha’a rights in the village…31

Again before the British departure and the Zionists’ take-over, JNF arranged evictions of the inhabitants,

In March 1948, Weitz, on his own initiative, began to implement his solution [with the approval of the Jewish officials]…using his personal contacts in the settlements and local Haganah units, and [Israeli] officers, he organized several evictions. At Yoqne’am, southeast of Haifa, he persuaded Israeli officer Yehuda Burstein to ‘advise’ the local tenant farmers and those in neighbouring Qira wa Qamun to leave, which they did. Weitz and his JNF colleagues in the North then decided to raze the tenants’ houses, to destroy their crops and to pay the evictees compensation. At the same time, he organized with the settlers of kibbutz Kfar Masaryk the eviction of the squatting Ghawarina beduin in Haifa Bay, and the eviction of small tenant communities at Daliyat ar Ruha and Buteimat, southeast of Haifa…On 26 March 1948, at a meeting with JNF officials, he called for the expulsion of the inhabitants of Qumiya and neighbouring Tira…32

Following the declaration of the state of Israel and the British departure on 15 May 1948, JNF started openly its

large scale ethnic cleansing.

29 Benvenisti, supra note 7, pp.155-156 30 Morris, supra note 26, p.131 31 Benvenisti, supra note 7, p.134 32 Morris, supra note 26, pp.131-132

23

JNF’s director, Yosef Weitz formed and headed a “Transfer Committee” whose objectives as formulated on June 4,

1948 were33,

• Destruction of villages as much as possible during military operations. • Prevention of any cultivation of land by them [i.e., the Arabs], including reaping, collection [of crops],

picking [olives] and so on... • Settlement of Jews in a number of villages and towns so that no “vacuum” is created. • Enacting legislation [geared to barring a return]. • [Making] propaganda [aimed at non-return]. The committee proposed that it oversee the destruction of villages and the renovation of certain sites for Jewish settlement, negotiate the purchase of Arab land, prepare legislation for expropriation and negotiate the resettlement of the refugees in Arab countries. Weitz recorded that Ben-Gurion ‘agreed to the whole line’…Then, using his ‘personal JNF apparatus, the network of regional JNF offices and workers, and a web of land-purchasing agents and intelligence and settlement contacts around the world, Weitz set in motion the leveling of a handful of villages (al Mughar, near Gedera, Fajja, near Petah Tikva, Biyar Adas, near Magdiel, Beit Dajan, east of Tel Aviv, Miska, near Ramat Hakovesh, Sumeiriya, near Acre, Buteimat and Sabbarin, southeast of Haifa). On 10 June, Weitz sent two officials, Asher Bobritzky and Moshe Berger, to tour the Coastal Plain to determine which empty villages should be destroyed and which renovated and settled with Jews. On 14 June, Danin [Weitz colleague on the Transfer Committee] informed Weitz of the progress in the destruction of Fajja and Zuckerman gave a progress report on the destruction of al Mughar. Almost certainly on the basis of a progress report from Weitz, Ben-Gurion, on 16 June, partially summarized the destruction of villages to date:

[Al] Mughar, Fajja, Biyar Adas have been destroyed. [Destruction is proceeding in] Miska, Beit Dajan (east of Tel Aviv), in [the] Hula [Valley], [in] Hawassa near Haifa, al Sumeiriya near Acre and Ja’tun [perhaps Khirbet Jattun] near Nahariya, Manshiya…near Acre. Daliyat ar Ruha has been destroyed and work is about begin at [al] Buteimat and Sabbarin.

JNF guided the military operations in order to evacuate and expropriate the land of Palestinian villages,

The village of Qumya and Indur – the biblical Endor – were captured and evacuated. Late in May 1948 three villages on the slopes of Mount Gilboa, facing the Jezreel Valley (Nuris, Mazar, and Zir’in), were taken…the objective in conquering the villages in the southern part of the valley was to obtain their land. The arable land of these five villages amounted to not less than 41,000 donums. The Jews were particularly interested in the village of Qumya, which was entirely surrounded by JNF land, and those of Zir’in (22,000 donums) where Jews owned 7 percent of the musha’a land…34

As the Israeli conquest proceeded toward Galilee in the north, JNF hand in the destruction of villages and the

seizure of its land became more evident. The leaders of Mapam, a left-leaning party which objected to the seizure

of Arab land but was soon overruled, received the following complaint from some of its members,

I got the impression that there exists the possibility that there is a desire to destroy the villages and [the Arabs’] houses so that it will be impossible for the Arabs to return to them. A week ago a representative of the JNF [possibly Yosef Nahmani] came to visit. He saw that in the village of al Sanbariya…several houses were still standing, albeit without roofs. He told the secretariat of the kibbutz to destroy the houses immediately and he said openly that this will enable us to take the village’s lands, because the Arabs won’t

33 ibid, pp. 313-314, 348-350. 34 Benvenisti, supra note 7, p.132.

24

be able to return there. I am sorry to say the kibbutz agreed immediately without thinking about what they were doing. 35

After 1948 hostilities, JNF was awarded generously for its activities. As described earlier, about 2,500 sq. km of

Palestinian land were transferred by Ben-Gurion to JNF under a fictitious ‘sale’ agreement in order to alienate this

land in favour of Jews everywhere, even if not citizens of Israel, and prohibit its rightful owners from return and re-

possession of their property.

All in all, JNF expropriated most of the lands of 372 Palestinian villages whose total area was 5,687,342 donums

(Maps 1, 2). As stated earlier, the owners of this property are 2,191,556 UN-registered refugees or 54% of all

registered Palestinian refugees, living in exile. (The list of these villages and their population is shown in

Appendix 2).

The traces of these villages are still visible. The remains of the old mosque, church and cemetery are still visible. It

is forbidden for Palestinians to repair or use them. The cactus plant, which defies uprooting, marks the location of

the Palestinian villages. Hence, JNF found it convenient to plant parks on their sites, to hide the location of the

original village, paid for and named after wealthy Jewish donors in Europe and America. JNF alone planted 60

parks of its afforestation projects on expropriated Palestinian village sites and a further 22 with National Parks

Authority.36 (The name and location of these parks are given in Appendix 2).

Under international law, ethnic cleansing, destruction of property and depopulation of villages are war crimes. JNF

has participated in these war crimes. All such actions are punishable. Remedy/restitution must be made, as was the

case in many cases during the Second World War and in the Bosnia, Kosova War. JNF actions must be viewed in

this context. As war crimes have no statute of limitations, JNF responsibility is still standing.

Furthermore, the UN affirmed repeatedly that the Palestinian refugees are entitled to return to their homes and

property through the well-known resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, reaffirmed annually ever since, in

which the General Assembly resolved that the refugees should be permitted to return to their homes and be

compensated.37 In its explanation of resolution 194, the UN stated in very clear terms:

…the property of a refugee has been wrongfully seized, sequestered, requisitioned, confiscated, or detained by the Israeli Government, the claimant is entitled to restitution of the property, if it is still in existence, plus indemnity for damages…38

35 Morris, supra note 26, p.357. 36 Kadman, supra note 3, Appendix II. 37 United Nations Resolutions on Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, George J. Tomeh (ed.), Institute for Palestine Studies, Vol. 1 (1947-1974), p.15. 38 Historical Survey of Efforts of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine to Secure the Implementation of Paragraph 11 of General Assembly Resolution 194 (III), AC.25/W.81/Rev.2, United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, (Annex IV “Compensation for the Property of Non-Returning Refugees” -Excerpts from a memorandum prepared by the Legal Adviser to the Economic Survey Mission, November 1949), 2 October 1961.

25

Other UN resolutions called for the protection of Palestinian property and the entitlement to their revenue from it.

The following resolution is a typical example:

Para 1: Reaffirms that the Palestine refugees are entitled to their property and to the income derived therefrom, in conformity with the principles of equity and justice. Para 4: Calls upon all the parties concerned to provide the Secretary-General with any pertinent information in their possession concerning Arab property, assets and property rights in Israel that would assist him in the implementation of the present resolution. [A/Res/59/120 dated 15 December 2004]

4.2. Discrimination and Apartheid against the Palestinian Citizens of Israel. JNF acts on behalf of “the Jewish people” everywhere in the use and exploitation of expropriated Palestinian land in

Israel and discriminates against the non-Jewish Palestinian citizens of Israel. The use of Palestinian land

expropriated by the state of Israel was challenged by the non-Jewish citizens before Israeli courts. Uri Avnery, the

Israeli peace activist, stated, “[JNF] has become an instrument for institutionalized discrimination”.39

As stated before, Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel has challenged this policy of

discrimination,

Adalah argues that, as a public authority established under the law, the ILA is obliged to operate in a manner consistent with the principles of public administration; above all the principles of equality, just land distribution and fairness. Adalah stressed that these principles are of the utmost importance, “in light of the great significance of the resource of lands administered by the ILA, which is considered the most fundamental and essential resource for socio-economic development”. Adalah contends that, in spite of its obligations and the significance of land resources, the ILA fails to adhere to these principles. On the contrary, the ILA has pursued inequitable and discriminatory land allocation and development policies towards the Arab minority in Israel. Land has been distributed along sectarian lines for the benefit of the Jewish population, at a time when large tracts of land have been expropriated from the Arab population.40 Adalah stated that JNF enjoys an enormous influence over land distribution policy in Israel. For example, half of the members of the ILA Council, which determines land policy in Israel and manages “Israel’s lands”, must be nominated by the JNF by law. These lands comprise 93% of the land in Israel, and include the land owned by the JNF. Although under Israeli law state-owned land cannot be sold, the JNF’s special status enables the transfer of lands to it from the state.41 As the JNF declared in response to Adalah’s petition and a further petition filed against the ILA’s policy by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, its loyalty is only to the Jewish people and not the general public in Israel, and it operates only for the benefit of Jewish citizens. The JNF attempted to justify this position by claiming to have purchased the lands within its ownership using money donated by Jews from around the world for the purpose of buying land in Israel and its distribution among Jews. However, as Attorney Bishara argued in the petition, 80% (close to 2 million donums) of the JNF’s lands were transferred to it by the state in 1949 and 1950, giving the JNF a special status under Israeli law.

39 Uri Avnery, “Dunam After Dunam” in Israel Horizons, Spring 2005. 40 Adalah Newsletter, Vol. 4, August 2004, www.adalah.org/newsletter/eng/aug04/5.php 41 Adalah Newsletter, Vol. 8, December 2004, www.adalah.org/newsletter/eng/dec04/5.php.

26

The ILA rationalizes its policy of restricting bids for JNF-owned lands to Jews citing the agreement signed between the state of Israel and the JNF in 1961. Under this agreement, the ILA is obliged to respect the objectives of the JNF, which include the acquisition of land “for the purpose of settling Jews”. However, Adalah argued that the agreement does not permit the ILA to be a sub-contractor for discrimination on the basis of nationality: as a public agency established under law, the ILA is not authorized to adopt positions or pursue goals which are contrary to the principles of equality, just distribution and fairness.42 Adalah also discussed the question of the proposed separation of JNF-controlled lands from the ILA. The [Gadish] committee has received recommendations for an exchange of lands via this process of separation between the state and the JNF, according to which the JNF would concede lands in towns in the central region of Israel to the state in exchange for lands in the ‘National Priority Areas’. Adalah stated that the combination of the JNF’s influence over land policy in Israel, its ability to acquire ‘Israel’s lands’, the classification of the JNF’s land as ‘Israel’s lands’, in addition to its control over 13% of the most important resource in Israel, mean that the JNF cannot be considered a private entity, beyond the obligation to operate within the principles of public administration. Adalah argues that, even if not a purely public entity, the JNF must be regarded as a “dual entity”, obliged to abide by the principles of public administration, respecting and adhering to the fundamental principles of equality, just distribution and fairness. The ILA and JNF claim, conversely, that the principles of public administration do not apply to the JNF, and that the fund therefore has the right to exclusively serve the Jewish public, contrary to the above principles. However, Adalah stressed that, even if the ILA and JNF’s position is legally acceptable, the JNF is not thereby authorized to act without constraints in this case. Of the 2.5 million donums of JNF-controlled land, almost 1 million donums were transferred to the JNF by the Israeli authorities in the late 1940s. Additional land was transferred to the JNF over the years. Hence, despite the official transfer of these lands to the JNF, the vast scale of land involved in the proposed transfer, as well as the JNF’s extensive powers over large swathes of land in Israel and its involvement in determining land policy, mean that these lands remain subject to the principles of equality, just distribution and fairness. Regarding the plan for land transfers between the ILA and the JNF, Adalah contends that the plan is unconstitutional, as it represents an attempt to circumvent the principles of equality, just distribution and fairness with respect to affected lands in the north of Israel and the Naqab. Moreover, if implemented, the ramifications of this plan would be particularly grave, given that the Arab population in the north of Israel constitutes over half the region’s population (51.6%), 13.6% in the south of Israel, and almost 25% in the northern Naqab.43

These discriminatory, indeed racist practices, have been repeatedly censured by the Treaty-Based Committees on

Human Rights. One resolution (E/C.12/1/Add.90 dated 23 May 2003) criticizes the notion of the "Jewish

character" of the state. It reads:

The Committee is particularly concerned about the status of "Jewish nationality", which is a ground for exclusive preferential treatment for persons of Jewish nationality under the Israeli Law of Return, granting them automatic citizenship and financial government benefits , thus resulting in practice in discriminatory treatment against non-Jews, particular Palestinian refugees.

Another resolution (E/C.12/1/Add.27 dated 4 December 1998) criticizes the discriminatory policies of JNF. It

states,

42 Adalah Newsletter, Vol. 9, January 2005, www.adalah.org/newsletter/eng/jan05/kkl.php 43 Adalah Newsletter, Vol. 4, August 2004, www.adalah.org/newsletter/eng/aug04/5.php

27

The Committee notes with grave concern that the Status Law of 1952 authorizes the World Zionist Organization/ Jewish Agency and its subsidiaries including the Jewish National Fund to control most of the land in Israel, since these institutions are chartered to benefit Jews exclusively. Despite the fact that the institutions are chartered under private law, the State of Israel nevertheless has a decisive influence on their policies and thus remains responsible for their activities. A State Party cannot divest itself of its obligations under the Covenant by privatizing governmental functions. The Committee takes the view that large-scale and systematic confiscation of Palestinian land and property by the State and the transfer of that property to these agencies, constitute an institutionalized form of discrimination because these agencies by definition would deny the use of these properties by non-Jews. Thus, these practices constitute a breach of Israel's obligations under the Covenant.

This is a very clear judgement of the international community against JNF practices.

A largely forgotten convention that was never ratified by Israel (or other settler-colonial states like the USA,

Canada, Australia or New Zealand) but that clearly outlines the illegal nature of the apartheid policies practised by

the Israeli state and its affiliated agencies is the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment

of the Crime of Apartheid adopted by General Assembly resolution 3068 (XXVIII) on 30 November 1973 and

enforced on 18 July 1976, in accordance with article XV. This convention states44:

Article II: For the purpose of the present Convention, the term “the crime of apartheid”, which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practised in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group or persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them:

para c: Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade union,the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association; para d: Any measures including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups,…the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof;

JNF continues to this day its practice of discrimination and Apartheid against the Palestinian citizens of Israel.

Although the UN and human rights NGOs have condemned these practices, no effective measure has been taken to

stop JNF from these practices. This must change.

4.3. Violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled on July 9, 2004 as follows:

44 http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/11.htm

28

101: In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable in any occupied territory in the event of an armed conflict arising between two or more High Contracting Parties. Israel and Jordan were parties to that Convention when the 1967 armed conflict broke out. The Court accordingly finds that that Convention is applicable in the Palestinian territories which before the conflict lay to the east of the Green Line and which, during that conflict, were occupied by Israel, there being no need for any enquiry into the precise prior status of those territories.

Thus the West Bank and Gaza Strip are “occupied territories” and the Fourth Geneva Convention applies.

The Statute of Rome of July 1998 prohibited ethnic cleansing or removal and replacement of the inhabitants in very

strong terms. Article 8 (War Crimes) of Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines “war

crimes”45:

Para 2, a, iv: …extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly… Para 2, b, viii: The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory.

Rome Statute relates to the Palestinian Occupied Territories and it gives ICC the jurisdiction over acts committed

after 1 July 2002. Nonetheless, the War Crimes clauses reflect the customary international law which had been

accepted for most of the twentieth century.

To avoid international censure, JNF established Himnuta as a subsidiary of JNF with wide powers to operate in the

West Bank and to “buy” land, frequently through forged papers for the settlement of Jews in the occupied

territories. Though Himnuta is run as a division of JNF, formally, it is a private company – and therefore, its

dealings go largely unsupervised. It has never issued financial statements or publicized any information about its

business deals, even though it is financed in part by state funds, nor is it subject to oversight by either the state

comptroller or the High Court of Justice.46 “The JNF today holds 99% of the company’s [Himnuta] shares, and its

official offices are at the JNF. Legally Himnuta is an independent company; in many other aspects, it is the JNF by

another name”.47

Recently Himnuta was in the news for purchasing illegally-acquired West Bank lands for more than NIS 20 million

($4 million). The investigation began in May 2004, when certain Palestinian landowners discovered that their lands

had been sold without their knowledge and were now registered in Israel’s Land Registry (Turkish: Tapu) as

belonging to Himnuta. “Since 1967, tens of thousands of donums of land have been purchased by the Jewish

National Fund in areas of strategic importance in Judea and Samaria. The lands share a common location: They

are all near the Green Line, in areas which will be up for negotiation in the event of an Israel withdrawal to the

45 See www.un.org/law/icc/statute/romefra.htm 46 “Background / State funded, yet private”, Haaretz, 28 February 2005. 47 Amiram Barkat, “JNF-owned company bought land in the territories”, Haaretz, 17 February 2005.

29

1949-1967 armistice lines. The lands were purchased with funds from the state and the World Zionist

Organization, through Himnuta – a subsidiary established by the JNF to carry out complex and discreet

transactions.”48

ILA has been reported by Haaretz that its “markets building plots in the West Bank (23 July 2004) and it “sells [to

Jews] 1,815 lots in West Bank by end of year” (28 July 2004).

In addition to ILA and Himnuta unlawful activities in the occupied West Bank, JNF openly acquired land there and

planted ‘forests’ on it in its standard way of staking claim and acquisition of Palestinian land. Map 3 shows lands

acquired by JNF in and around Jerusalem. This is part of the plan to judaize greater Jerusalem.

It is clear therefore that JNF directs ILA and Himnuta operations everywhere, including those in the West Bank.

Whether directly or through Himnuta or ILA, JNF plays a central role in unlawful activities. All the activities of

acquiring land in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and moving the population of the Occupying Power to them

are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

4.4. Violation of Domestic Law where JNF operates outside Israel. JNF is registered as charity in many countries. Due to the influence of the Jewish communities in these countries,

JNF local boards, Friends-of-JNF boards or similar groups include distinguished members of the non-Jewish

community in the country concerned. Very likely they are not aware of the extent and severity of JNF’s violation of

international law in its operations in Israel.

Gala events, donations and bequeaths collect many millions of tax-free dollars which are used in Israel for illegal

practices. This is not to mention that such tax-free dollars would be better spent on the citizens in the country where

the money was earned.

The status of JNF as a charity organization has been questioned in Canada, Scotland and Australia but not to the

extent of fully-documented and well-argued court cases.

In USA, there have been recent (Jewish) reports of JNF mishandling of funds and possible violation of US law.49

This situation is undoubtedly bound to change. JNF’s tax-free money are used to exploit the expropriated property

for the benefit of Jews only, thereby depriving the rightful owners of this property from repossession of their

48 Ibid. 49 Cynthia Mann, “JNF: Seeds of doubt – Report says only fifth of donations go to Israel, but no fraud is found” in Jewish News Weekly of Northern California, 26 October 1996, www.jewishsf.com.

30

property. Instead, they now live in exile in refugee camps. This violates several articles of international law, some

can be considered war crimes.

Source: Shaul Ephraim Cohen, The Politics of Planting: Israel – Palestinian Competition for the Control of Land in the Jerusalem Periphery, Geography Research Paper No. 236, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1993, p. 110.

Map 3: Land Acquired and Planted by JNF in the Occupied West Bank and in and around Jerusalem

31

With the world-wide climate of increased awareness of human rights – through parliaments, churches50, NGOs and

media, and with the equally-rising importance of world-wide control on movement of money and its effect on

world’s peace and stability, it is absolutely necessary to control, curtail, censure and eliminate JNF’s violation of

domestic law, in which JNF is registered.

Citizens of all countries where JNF is registered (as a charity or not) are called upon to examine JNF status and

check its compliance with applicable laws, domestic and international.

50 Several churches have taken resolution to divest from Israel and from companies that deliver equipment which cause destruction and suffering. For example, US Presbyterian Church accused five companies namely, Caterpillar, Motorola, United Technologies, ITT industries and Citigroup, of contributing to the “ongoing violence that plagues Israel and Palestine” and pledged to use the Church’s multimillion-dollar stock holdings in the businesses to pressure them to modify or halt their dealings with Israel. See Haaretz, 7 August 2005.

32

Appendix 1: JNF Offices World-wide The establishment of JNF as a British corporation in 1907 was followed fifty years later by establishing JNF as an Israeli company carrying out on the ground what the British JNF did from a distance. Now JNF has 41 office worldwide in the following countries51: Austria, Australia, Argentina, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Curacao, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Guatemala, Holland, Honduras, Hong-Kong, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The Czech Republic, United States, Uruguay and Venezuela. There are also regional (branch) offices in the following countries: USA, UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, France, South Africa, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil and Ecuador. The World Chairman of KKL-JNF Board of Directors: Yehiel Leket (He is also Deputy President of the World Jewish Congress. JNF is registered as charity in most countries. This means money collected from these countries are tax-exempt. But instead of spending this money to help the citizens of the country, it is sent abroad in pursue of racist policies in a foreign country in violation of international law. JNF - USA The President of JNF USA is Mr. Ronald S. Lauder. Its main office is in: 42E, 69th St, New York, NY 10021, USA. The Chief Executive Officer is Mr. Russell F. Robinson. There are 22 regional (branch) offices in the following zones in USA: Western Zone, Los Angeles Zone, Midwestern Zone, Southern Zone, Florida Zone, Midatlantic Zone, Northeastern Zone, Greater New York Zone and New England Zone. JNF, Inc is a not-for-profit corporation founded in 1926, devoted to and supports the purchase of land in Israel and promotes and furthers the religious, cultural, physical, social and agricultural general welfare of the Jewish state. JNF is a Section 501© (3) not-for-profit organization and is exempt from Federal income taxes under Section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. JNF has been classified as a publicly-supported organization as described in Section 509(a)(1) of the Code. JNF is also exempt from state and local income taxes. Constituent organizations, which support and contribute to its work, include B’nai B’rith, Hadassah, Na’amat USA, Amit and the Religious Zionists of America. JNF - UK JNF is registered as JNF Charitable Trust in UK incorporated in 1939 to promote exclusively charitable projects in Israel. It is regulated by the Charity Commission for England and Wales and publishes its accounts. As a charity, it is able to receive donations under Gift Aid, and legacies enjoy relief from UK inheritance tax. Some of JNF’s honorary patrons are Prime Minister Tony Blair, the leader of the Opposition Michael Howard and the Rt. Hon Charles Kennedy The charity correspondent of JNF is Mr. David Pollock52. JNF-UK has its head office at: Spring Villa Park, Edgware, Middlesex, HA8 7Ed, UK. It also has regional offices in Birmingham, Dublin, Glasgow, Hull, Leeds, Liverpool and Manchester. 51 See Website: www.kkl.org.il, ‘KKL Offices’. 52 See Website: www.charity-commission.gov.uk. Charity No: 225910.

33

JNF-UK is comprised of the following committees: NEGEV, JNF First Ladies, JNF Israeli Forum, JNF Bournemouth, JNF Milluim, Walk For Water, JNF Brighton & Hove. The regulator of charity organizations in the UK are: HM Revenue & Customs (formerly Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise): Charities@inlandrevenue.gov.uk, Tel: +44 870 1 555 445 Charity Commission for England & Wales: Woodfield House, Tangier, Taunton, Somerset, TA1 4BL, Tel: 0870 333 0123, Fax: 0182 334 5003 Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator: 1st floor, Argyll House, Marketgait, Dundee, DD1 1QP, Tel: 0138 222 0446 Inland Revenue Charities (Scotland): Meldrum House, 15 Drumsheugh Gardens, Edinburgh, EH3 7UL, Tel: 0131 777 4126 JNF – Canada President of JNF-Canada: Sharon Marcovitz Hart National Director of JNF-Canada: Joe Rabinovitch It is listed as a charitable organization. It raised $15 million in the early 1970s to establish Canada Park a “recreational” area built on land-occupied by the Israeli military in 1967 in order to cover-up the destroyed Palestinian villages of Imwas, Yallu, and Beit Nuba. Such a blatant manipulation of historical memory in the name of “nature conservation” highlights the way in which the JNF and ILA are used in an attempt to erase any signs of the indigenous population of Palestine53. In 2005 Negev gala dinner raised a record $1.4 million which is earmarked for five new community action centres in Israel. The regulator of charity organizations in Canada is: Canada Revenue Agency Contact Person: Elizabeth Tromp, Director General, Charities Directorate Tel: +613-954 0410 (English) or +613-954 6215 (bilingual) Toll free: +1-800-267 2384 (English) or +1-888-892 5667 (bilingual) Fax: +613-954 2586 JNF and Himnuta: The JNF established Himnuta in the 1930s, mainly to circumvent legal restrictions on its own land dealings. For instance, Himnuta can buy lands as an investment or exchange lands with Arab dealers, both of which are forbidden for the JNF. Himnuta owns senior citizens’ homes and manages the property of childless people who transfer their property to the JNF in exchange for the right to live on that property, or in a seniors’ home run by the JNF. Himnuta also owns real estate that was purchased with government funds but is registered in the name of Himnuta, which is theoretically a private company that can prevent the use or sale of land to entities whom the state cannot legally prevent from using the land. Himnuta is then something of a “backup” for the state in case it fails to prevent the existence of a market.54

53 Kole Kilibarda and Hazem Jamjoum, “Campaign to strip JNF of Canadian charitable status” in Al-Awda, March 2005. 54 Blougrund, supra note 14.

34

Appendix 2: List of 372 Palestinian Villages whose land was expropriated by JNF and the registered refugees from these villages.

S. No. Village Name Reg. Refugees

Dec 2002

Name of national park (N.P.) / nature reserve (N.R.) / JNF park

/ site Parks Created by

1 Ghabisiyya 3,481 2 Bassa al 11,528 3 Zib al 9,479 Tel Achziv N.P. NPA

4 Nahr al 3,040

5 Umm Al Faraj 4,874

6 Birwa al 3,754

7 Jiddin; Khirbat 706 Yechiam fortress NPA

8 Amqa 7,856 9 Kuwaykat 6,113 10 Damun al 3,380 11 Suhmata 6,028 12 Iqrit 217 13 Tarbikha 3,797 14 Jish 3,529 15 Majd al Kurum 1,954 16 Dayr Ayyub 1,193 Canada park JNF

17 Dayr Muhaysin 2,380

18 Khulda 1,594

19 Saydun 1,523

20 Bayt Far; Khirbat 1,259

21 Mansura al 1,016

22 Mukhayzin al 855

23 Bash-shit 11,666

24 Beit Nabala 19,538

25 Abu Shusha 5,409 Tel Gezer N.P. NPA

26 Na'ani al 11,512

27 Qubab al 17,031 Lehi park JNF

28 Qatra 8,617

29 Maghar al 12,816 Merar hills n.p JNF & NPA

30 Sarafand al 'Amar 20,131

31 Qubayba al 11,080

32 Zarnuqa 15,319

33 Bayt Jiz 4,030 Rabin park JNF

34 Bayt Susin 1,098 Rabin park JNF

35 Yibna 40,199 36 Tina al 5,257

37 Idnibba 4,261 Kharuvit forest JNF

38 Jilya 3,430

39 Khayma al 2,208

40 Barriyya al 3,762

41 Daniyal 1,693

42 Dayr Tarif 13,070

43 Dhuhayriyya al K 859 Ben Shemen forest JNF

44 'Innaba 9,630 Ben Shemen forest JNF

35

45 Jimzu 12,668 Ben Shemen forest JNF

46 Kunayyisa al 2,536

47 Lydda 114,657

48 Qula 5,773 Kula castle N.P JNF & NPA

49 El Ramle 83,874 50 Tira al 8,990

51 Wilhelma 85

52 Haditha al 6,764 Tel Hadid JNF

53 Jindas 55

54 Kharruba 3,017 Ben Shemen forest JNF

55 Muzayri'a al 5,880

56 Zakariya K 8 Ben Shemen forest JNF

57 Dayr Abu Salama 1,052 Ben Shemen forest JNF

58 Majdal Yaba(Majdal al Sadiq) 8,477 Migdal Zedek N.P. NPA

59 Barfiliya 7,019 Ben Shemen forest JNF

60 Bayt Shanna 3,644

61 Bir Ma'in 2,134

62 Salbit 8,406

63 Latrun al 912

64 Farwana 1,547

65 Ashrafiyya al 2,834

66 Baysan 33,143 67 Fatur al 112 68 Hamidiyya al 1,031 Yissaschar river N.R. NPA

69 Zab'a 620 70 Bira al 1,273 Tavor river N.R. NPA

71 Bawati al A - (Hakimiya) 2,539 72 Kaukab al Hawa 1,766 Kochav Hayarden N.P. NPA

73 Bashatwi 9,392 74 Jabbul 1,547 75 Arida al A 768 76 Ghazawiyya al A 6,666 77 Khunayzir al A 583 78 Safa al A 2,310 79 Zarra'a al A - Tirat Tsevi 31 80 Samiriyya al 2,043 81 Hamra al 3,627 82 Masil al-Jizl(al Zinati) 367 83 Umm 'Ajra 845 84 Bayt Daras 21,105 Zemorot pool N.R. NPA

85 Burayr 19,287

86 Huleiqat 2,930

87 Kawkaba 5,046

88 Barqa 5,627

89 Batani Gharbi 6,426

90 Batani Sharqi 5,089

91 Najd 5,749

92 Simsim 9,328

93 Sawafir al Gharbiya al 8,323

94 Sawafir ash Shamaliya al 3,346

36

95 Sawafir ash Sharqiya al 8,220

96 Kawfakha 4,228

97 Suqrir A 3,562

98 Muharraqa al 4,317

99 Huj 5,590

100 Yasur 6,915

101 Julis 7,363

102 Ibdis 3,735

103 Jaladiyya al 2,693

104 Masmiyya al Kabira 20,041

105 Masmiyya as Saghira(Huraniyya) 2,326

106 Summayl 7,330

107 Qastina 6,461

108 Tall at Turmus 5,374

109 Hatta 7,243

110 Juseir 8,142

111 Beit Tima 8,211

112 Dimra 4,891

113 Isdud 28,489 Sands Park JNF

114 Bayt Jirja 7,784

115 Dayr Suneid 6,721

116 Hiribya 19,378

117 Al Majdal (Ashkelon) 58,431

118 Barbara 19,860

119 Jiyya al 8,280

120 Jura al 18,092

121 Khisas K 1,314

122 Ni'ilya 9,162

123 Faluja al 34,838

124 Daliyat ar Rawha 496 125 Ghubaiyat 6,401 126 Abu Shusha 4,752 127 Lid; Khirbat (Lydd el 'Awadim) 1,976 128 Abu Zureiq 3,690 Ramat Menashe Park JNF

129 Kafrayn al 6,334 Ramat Menashe Park JNF

130 Mansi al ('Arab Baniha) 13,924 131 Qannir 6,684 132 Rihaniyya al 1,564 Ramat Menashe Park JNF

133 Butaymat al 663 134 Burayka 2,027 135 Khubbayza 1,771 Ramat Menashe Park JNF

136 Sabbarin 12,240 137 Sindiyana al 8,592 Alona forest N.R. NPA

138 Umm ash Shauf 3,042 139 Atlit 510 140 Umm az Zinat 9,825 Carmel mountain N.R JNF & NPA

141 Tantura al 7,766 142 Ayn Haud 3,012 143 Mazar al 1,386 144 Kafr Lam 1,198

37

145 Sarafand al 840 146 Shafa Amr 4,599 147 Tira al 30,746 148 Ayn Ghazal 10,992 Karmel Park JNF

149 Ijzim 12,896

150 Jaba' 1,050 Karmel Park JNF

151 Mughallis 3,458

152 Tall as Safi 10,815 Tel Zafit N.P JNF & NPA

153 Zayta 2,727

154 Ajjur 31,162 Britain park JNF

155 Bayt Nattif 21,712 Unknown name JNF

156 Kidna 3,488 Britain park JNF

157 Ra'na 1,911

158 Zikrin 8,209

159 Dayr ad Dubban 7,770 Britain park JNF

160 Beit Jibrin 21,020 Beit Govrin N.P. JNF & NPA

161 Dayr Nakh-khas 5,613 162 Zakariyya 9,375 163 Muwaylih al 75 164 Biyar 'Adas 4,152 165 Bayt Dajan 23,149 166 Kafr 'Ana 15,212 167 Saqiya 6,786 168 Abbasiyya al (al Yahudiyya) 35,937 169 Safiriyya 23,960 170 Rantiya 3,473 171 Bayt Naqquba 843 172 Bayt Thul 2,147 Hakfira forest JNF

173 Qaluniya 6,412

174 Qastal al 881 Qastel N.P JNF & NPA

175 Nataf 276 Kfira river N.P. JNF & NPA

176 Saris 3,978 Rabin park JNF

177 Bayt Mahsir 20,633

178 Jura al 2,551

179 Aqqur 131 Sataf forest JNF

180 Lawz al; Khirbat 4,557 Judean hills N.P JNF & NPA

181 Sataf 4,563 Sataf N.P JNF & NPA

182 Suba 4,590 Zova N.P JNF & NPA

183 Maliha al 12,169

184 Dayr 'Amr 300

185 Kasla 1,446 The Saints' forest JNF

186 Ayn Karim 16,756

187 Deir Rafat 562

188 Ishwa' 3,558

189 Islin 2,071 Eshta'ol forest JNF

190 Burayj al 7,370 191 Dayr Aban 18,150 USA independence park JNF

192 Dayr al Hawa 309 USA independence park JNF

193 Sufla 445 Nahal Dolev N.R USA independence park

JNF & NPA

194 Bayt 'Itab 4,848 Beit 'Itab N.P. USA independence JNF & NPA

38

park

195 Bayt Umm al Mays 299 The saints' forest JNF

196 Dayr ash Sheikh 1,064 Sorek river N.R. JNF & NPA

197 Jarash 1,603 Nahal Dolev N.P. USA independence park

JNF & NPA

198 Ras Abu 'Ammar 4,808 Begin park JNF

199 Umur al K 2,006 The Saints forest JNF

200 Walaja al 11,349 Unknown name JNF

201 Allar 3,291 USA independence park JNF

202 Qabu al 2,546 Begin park JNF

203 Ayn al-Mansi 9 204 Mujaydil al 6,224 205 Saffuriyya 26,803 Zippori N.P JNF & NPA

206 Taytaba 3,152 207 Wayziyya 33 208 Suyyad al A(Jubb Yusuf) 2,043 209 Zanghariyya al (Zuhluq) 3,814 210 Dallata 1,909 211 Mirun 1,122 212 Qaddita 1,118 213 Zuq at Tahtani al 8,274 214 Sammu'i al 1,659 215 Na'ima al 6,553 216 Qaytiyya 6,485 217 Lazzaza 1,378 218 Zawiya al 4,186 219 Ammuqa 471 Biria forests JNF

220 Salihiyya al 11,292 221 Marus 118 Unknown name JNF

222 Qabba'a 2,893 Biria forests JNF

223 Malikiyya al 3,136 224 Safsaf 5,472 225 Alma 5,953 226 Dayshum 3,091 227 Fara 2,132 Bar'am forests JNF

228 Ras al Ahmar al 3,052

229 Sa'sa 7,517

230 Sabalan 655

231 Saliha 6,367

232 Kafr Bir'im 509 Kefar Bara'am N.P. Bar'am forests JNF & NPA

233 Tiberias 22,342

234 Wa'ra al-Sawda al K(A alMawasi) 4,013

Haarbel N.P. NPA

235 Samakiyya al A 336 Kfar Nahum N.P JNF & NPA

236 Hittin 9,284 Haarbel N.P. NPA

237 Lubiya 19,262 Lavi forest JNF

238 Nimrin 1,740 239 Wadi Qabbani 431 240 Raml Zeita(K.Qazaza) 1,272 241 Manshiya al K 541 242 Zalafa K 405

39

243 Birket Ramadan(Wakf Khalil Rahman) 7

244 Miska 4,300 245 Kafr Saba 8,570 246 Zababida al; Khirbat 644 247 Qaqun 11,857 Kakun fortress N.P. NPA

248 Arab El Samniya 742 249 Fassuta 375 250 Mi'ilya 107 251 Mazra'a al 1,047 252 Abu Sinan 35 253 Julis 34 254 Tarshiha 17,374 255 Beit Jann 7 256 Makr 28 257 Judeida 17 258 Sha'b 6,666 259 Kabul 145 260 Sakhnin 197 261 I'billin 760 262 Daliyat El-Carmel 102 263 Fureidis 1,202 264 Zalafa 1,017 265 Umm El-Fahm etc. 1,403 266 Muqeibila 1,776 267 Qaryet El-'Inab (Abu Gosh) 1,825 268 Beit Jimal 437 269 Kafr Manda 139 270 Rummana 1 271 Tur'an 161 272 Reina 148 273 Rihaniya 212 274 Hurfeich 151 275 Tuba ('Arab El-Heib) 1,212 276 Jatt 295 277 Qalansiwa 963 278 Tira 986 279 Taiyiba;Kh.'Amarin;Nuseirat Kh 1,122 280 Jaljuliya 1,987 281 Kafr Bara 12 282 Kafr Qasem 1,726 283 Abu Zeina K. 46 284 Khureish 250 285 Qubeiba; Kh. El 81 286 Zububa 3,084 287 Arab El 'Aramisha & El Quleitat 47 288 Rummana 2,833 289 El Yamun 31 290 Gh. Jaiyus 29 291 Kafr Jammal 236 292 Kafr Sur 568

40

293 Far'un 121 294 Irtah 8 295 Tulkarm 430 296 Shuweika 265 297 Deir el Ghusun 378 298 Zeita 38 299 Kafr Thulth 22 300 Habla 8 301 Qalqiliya 27,156 302 El Lubban 315 303 Rantis 327 304 Shuqba 18 305 El Midya 35 306 Budrus 4,418 307 Qibya 90 308 Beit Nuba & 'Ajanjul 63 309 'Imwas 429 310 El Khalayil 33 311 Nuba 2 312 Surif 3,352 313 El Jab'a 18 314 Qatana 7,949 315 Beit Surik 1,358 316 Beit Iksa 5,145 317 Battir 4,838 318 Husan 1,086 319 Wadi Fukin 2,468 320 Beit Lahiya 6 321 Beit Hanun 27,129 322 Gaza 5,045 323 Bani Suheila 4 324 Kh. Ikhza'a 3,980 325 Tubas & Kashda & Bardala 25 326 Hula Cocession Area 101 327 Abu Al Hussain/Ghawali 4,617 328 Abu Amrah/Ghawali 5,183 329 Abu Athera/Najamat 4,986 330 Abu Bakrah/Ghawali 1,856 331 Abu Ghalion/Jarawin 10,821 332 Abu Khatleh/Ghawali 2,314 333 Abu Middain 19,304 334 Abu Muailiq/Hasanat 4,018 335 Abu Rawwaa 1,502 336 Abu Rqayiq/Qdeirat 4,115 337 Abu Shalhoub/Ghawali 1,493 338 Abu Shunnar/Alamat 3,203 339 Abu Sitteh/Ghawali 5,920 340 Abu Sousain/Najamat 6,476 341 Abu Suailiq/Jarawin 3,258 342 Abu Suhaiban/Najamat 18,874

41

343 Abu Yehya/Jarawin 5,690 344 Al Buraiqi/Hkuk 5,174 345 Al Dhawahreh 2,691 346 Al Diqs 4,805 347 Al Huzaiyil/Hkuk 3,346 348 Al Omour/Ghawali 3,927 349 Al Soufi/Najamat 14,464 350 Al Zraiye/Ghawali 6,433 351 Atawneh/Ntoush 5,668 352 Beli 2,430 353 Bin Rifee/Sawarkeh 3,800 354 Bin Sabbah/Hasanat 2,142 355 Gatatweh 1,133 356 Imara al PS 158 357 Jammama PS 377 358 Kawfakha 4,228 359 Rawashdeh 1,948 360 Thabet/Galazin 1,868 361 Urour 2,544 362 Wulaydeh 3,206

Total Refugee Population 2,152,578 Other Non Listed 13 Villages 38,978 Grand Total (Population) 2,191,556

Notes: JNF = Jewish National Fund, NPA = National Parks Authority, NR = Natural Reserve

(1) The number of villages whose land was expropriated by JNF wholly or partially is 372. The table above gives the names of only 362 villages. The population of 10 villages is not listed as the population size is unknown.

(2) Map 1 shows 336 affected village lands. A further 36 village lands in Beer Sheba are not well-defined, therefore not shown.

(3) The table above shows only 71 parks out of 116 shown on Map 2. Details of these parks are as follows:

71: planted on capital village land part of which is expropriated by JNF 9: planted on non-capital villages similarly expropriated

17: planted on capital village lands expropriated by the state 2: planted on non-capital villages similarly expropriated

16: planted on pre-1948 Jewish land 1: planted on Palestinian land in Beer Sheba sub-district, an example of several such parks

116: Total number of parks Source for information on parks: Noga Kadman, “Erased from Space and Consciousness – Depopulated Palestinian Villages in the Israeli-Zionist Discourse” (Master’s thesis in Peace and Development Studies), Dept of Peace and Development research, Goteborg University, November 2001. According to N. Kadman, of these 116 parks, 33 planted by National Parks Authority, 60 by JNF and 22 by both, in addition to a sample of one in Beer Sheba.

(4) The total number of registered refugees whose land were expropriated by JNF is 2,191,556, or 54% of all UN registered Palestinian

refugees.