PLUNDERING PALESTINE - Jerusalem Quarterly

PLUNDERING PALESTINE
Ownerless Objects?
The story of the books Palestinians left behind in 1948
Gish Amit
Winter 33
The Trade in Palestinian Antiquities
Morag M. Kersel
Looting and ‘Salvaging’ Palestinian Artefacts
Adel H. Yahya
Reparation for Lost Palestinian Property inside Israel
Leila Hilal
Looking at Evil Without Blinking
Raja Shehadeh
Whitewashing: The Making of Israeli Archaeology
Roger Heacock
‘Time Out’ in Jerusalem
Penny Johnson
A Nakba Photography Exhibit
Gina Benevento, with Issam Nassar
INSTITUTE OF JERUSALEM STUDIES

Issue القدس — 29 — 2008 Summer Winter 2007
33 ملف
formerly the Jerusalem Quarterly File
Local Newsstand Price: 14 NIS
Local Subscription Rates
Individual - 1 year: 50 NIS
Institution - 1 year: 70 NIS
International Subscription Rates
Individual - 1 year: USD 25
Institution - 1 year: USD 50
Students - 1 year: USD 20
(enclose copy of student ID)
Single Issue: USD 5
For local subscription to JQ, send a check or money order to:
The Institute of Jerusalem Studies
P.O. Box 54769, Jerusalem 91457
Tel: 972 2 298 9108, Fax: 972 2 295 0767
E-mail: jqf@palestine-studies.org
For international or US subscriptions send a check
or money order to:
The Institute for Palestine Studies
3501 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20007
Or subscribe by credit card at the IPS website:
http://www.palestine-studies.org
The publication is also available at the IJS website:
http://www.jerusalemquarterly.org
(Please note that we have changed our internet address
from www.jqf-jerusalem.org.)
Institute of Jerusalem Studies

Table of Contents
EDITORIAL
Why Are Those Men in Black Camping Near the Wall? .......................................3
FEATURES
Ownerless Objects?....................................................................................................7
The story of the books Palestinians left behind in 1948
Gish Amit
The Trade in Palestinian Antiquities......................................................................21
Morag M. Kersel
Looting and ‘Salvaging’...........................................................................................39
How the Wall, illegal digging and
the antiquities trade are ravaging Palestinian cultural heritage
Adel H. Yahya
Reparation for Lost Palestinian Property inside Israel........................................56
A review of international developments
Leila Hilal
REVIEWS
Looking at Evil Without Blinking...........................................................................65
A review of Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine
Raja Shehadeh
Whitewashing: ‘Everybody’ Does It.......................................................................... 71
A review of Raz Kletter, Just Past? The Making of Israeli Archaeology
Roger Heacock
‘Time Out’ in Jerusalem..........................................................................................76
Penny Johnson
‘I Come From There and Remember’....................................................................80
A coming photography exhibit commemorating the Nakba
Gina Benevento, with Issam Nassar
Jerusalem Diary................................................................................................83
December 2007 – March 2008
Cover photos: Two images of objects in the (former) Palestine Archaeological Museum by
photographer Eric Matson in the late British Mandate period. Source: Library of Congress

Why Are Those
Men in Black
Camping Near
the Wall?
An Israeli ‘archeological dig’ along the path
of the wall in al-Jib in the West Bank. Al-Jib
is the site of 7 th -8 th century wine cellars
and has been identified as the Biblical
‘Gibeon’ through Hebrew inscriptions found
by James Pritchard in 1956. The modern
village is home to some 5,000 Palestinians
who will be encircled by the wall Israel is
building through the West Bank.
Photo credit: Adel Yaha/PACE
Two colleagues on an early autumn walk
near Bir Nabala, a Jerusalem-area village
now cut off from Jerusalem by the Wall
Israel is constructing through the West
Bank, asked themselves this question and
wondered whether to investigate. Despite
the looming presence of the Wall, their
walk had been pleasant. A Palestinian man
tending his orchard had provided a bag of
pomegranates; workers at a stone quarry
invited them for tea and told stories of their
problems of living in Hebron and working
near Ramallah–the ‘absence of movement’
tales that often dominate Palestinian
interchange.
Our colleagues, a sociologist and an
anthropologist, always have their
investigative antenna out, so the Men in
Black had likewise to be interrogated.
They were forthcoming but the information
they gave was disturbing: they announced
themselves Druze police attached to the
Israeli army and charged with guarding a
temporary archaeological ‘dig’ along the
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 3 ]

course of the Wall. “It’s all ours,” they explained, waving their hands over the land and
what lay beneath it. 1
When the Men in Black declared “It’s all ours,” they were in violation of international
law (particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention) but nonetheless operating within the
bounds of a certain kind of Israeli legality. In an important new book, Eyal Weizman
points out that “on the same day that Arab Jerusalem and the area around it was
annexed to Israel, the Israeli government declared the archaeological and historical
sites in the West Bank, primarily those of Jewish or Israelite cultural relevance, to be
the state’s ‘national and cultural property’, amounting to de facto annexation of the
ground beneath the Occupied Territories, making it the first zone to be colonized.” 2
The manner in which Israeli law undergirds illegal activity in this colonized zone–and
the destruction of the non-renewable resource of the cultural heritage of Palestine–
concerns a number of authors in this special issue of Jerusalem Quarterly. New
opportunities for archaeological looting provided by the construction of the Wall are
carried out by agents of the Israeli state, and accompany the “matrix of control” (Jeff
Halper’s phrase) represented by the Wall. Similarly, the construction of Road 6, whose
north-south course also produces more annexation of West Bank land, was accompanied
by Israeli ‘salvage archaeology’ that yielded a range of “material objects…sherds and
ceramics and an extensive cemetery…variously attributed to periods ranging from the
Iron Age, Persian, Hellenistic and Early Roman to late Byzantine.” 3
In his article in this volume, Adel Yahya notes that about 1,500 archaeological sites are
isolated between the Wall (in its western course) and the Green Line, including over
250 ‘high potential’ sites–a tempting array indeed for Israel’s ‘salvage’ operations.
These state operations are joined on the other side of the Wall by what Adel Yahya
calls Palestinian ‘subsistence looters’, driven by poverty and enabled by the lack
of Palestinian security and enforcement. Palestinians “looting in their backyard”
are integrated into Israel’s ‘legal’ market of antiquities, where Yahya estimates they
receive perhaps 1% of the value of the objects they offer.
Like Morag Kersel in this volume, Yahya opposes the legal trade in antiquities–both
in Israel and Palestine–as a course that leads both to illegal looting and the destruction
of a cultural heritage that belongs to all. Kersel offers a carefully-considered review of
“the historical antecedents, the current practice, and the future initiatives” of cultural
heritage law and the trade in antiquities, including Ottoman, Mandate and current
Israeli legislation. While noting the inequities in the interim (Oslo) agreements,
where Palestine is obligated to safeguard archaeological sites but there is no Israeli
reciprocity, Kersel examines the Palestinian Draft Cultural and Natural Heritage Law
2003 and cautions that confirming a legal trade in antiquities may further endanger a
heritage already in peril. The Jerusalem Quarterly would welcome interventions on
this critical question from its readers.
[ 4 ] EDITORIAL Why are Those Men in Black Camping Near the Wall?

The looting and loss of Palestinian cultural and other property in 1948 is examined
in several contributions to this volume. In an illuminating piece, Gish Amit relates
the ‘untold story’ of the fate of Palestinian libraries and books ‘abandoned’ in 1948
(and their depository in Israel’s national library), making the important point that
“occupation and colonization does not end in taking over physical space. They achieve
their fulfillment by occupying cultural space as well, and by turning the cultural
artefacts of the victims into ownerless objects with no past.” Amit implicitly raises
an important question that has not been fully addressed by concerned Palestinians:
how to re-claim these objects, not simply physically as property, but also culturally
as embodiments of patrimony. In a helpful review of the right of Palestinians to
reparations for lost property inside Israel, legal expert Leila Hilal points out that
“the fate of Palestinian properties inside Israel has often times been neglected for
the issue of the right of return,” but that the right of return and restitution are in fact,
independent rights and that therefore, delving into issues of restitution does not forgo
the right of return.
Reviews of two books address new scholarship on the 1948 war and its aftermath,
as well as the destruction of cultural and other property. Raja Shehadeh reviews Ilan
Pappe’s crucial new investigation of Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948,
while Roger Heacock critiques the uneasy mixture of revelation and justification
in Raz Ketter’s Just Past? The Making of Israeli Archaeology. Ketter, a long-time
employee of the Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA), uses IAA archives to document
the Israeli army’s vast swath of destruction of archaeological, historical and other
cultural sites not only during the 1948 war but for years afterwards, while largely
defending the role of the IAA itself. Aside from the historical evidence, the recent
approval of the IAA to allow construction of a Museum of Tolerance on the site of an
ancient Muslim cemetery in Jerusalem’s Mamilla district raises questions about how
professionalism and commitment to preservation of cultural heritage operates in that
state institution.
A scholar who offered an alternative, pioneering and carefully-researched view of the
history and role of Israeli archaeology in her 2001 book 4 –Barnard professor Nadia
Abu El-Haj–was subjected last year not to an academic critique, but to a right-wing
campaign to deny her tenure, orchestrated by a Barnard alum who lives on an Israeli
settlement. That the crass campaign met with failure is of some comfort amidst the
many-pronged assaults on academic freedom (particularly of scholars on the Middle
East) that has cast a pall on American campus life.
Other forms of silencing in our context are even more direct. On the occasion of
the 40 th anniversary of Jerusalem’s occupation (and illegal annexation), the Israeli
Ministry of Interior prevented a conference on the subject, affixing a sign to the
entrance of the hotel where the conference was scheduled that read: “According to the
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 5 ]

law applied in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip of 1995, which organizes activities,
we order not to hold this conference in this hotel or anywhere else in the borders of
the state of Israel.” Once again, a version of the law (this time the interim accords of
1995!) is cited in the banning of expression or, in the idiom of this issue, the looting
of cultural expression and historical truth. In addition to their specific interventions,
we hope this issue makes a modest contribution to opening subjects that have been
forcibly closed.
Penny Johnson, Special Editor for this issue
Endnotes
1
Thanks to Jamil Hilal and Rema Hammami for
sharing this story.
2
Weizman, Eyal 2007. Hollow Land: Israel’s
Architecture of Occupation, London: Verso, p. 40.
3
Slyomovics, Susan 2007. “The Rape of Qula, a
Destroyed Palestinian Village,” in Nakba: Palestine,
1948 and the Claims of Memory (eds. Ahmed
Sa’di and Lila Abu Lughod), New York: Columbia
University Press, 44-45.
4
Abu El-Haj, Nadia 2001. Facts on the Ground:
Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-
Fashioning in Israeli Society. Chicago: University
of Chicago.
[ 6 ] EDITORIAL Why are Those Men in Black Camping Near the Wall?

Ownerless
Objects?
The story of the books
Palestinians left behind
in 1948
Gish Amit
Palestinians fleeing their homes in 1948
with all the belongings they can carry in
their hands. Photo courtesy of UNRWA/
Badil collection
“The Jewish National and
University Library has gathered
tens of thousands of abandoned
books during the war. We thank the
people of the army for the love and
understanding they have shown
towards this undertaking.”
–National Library News, June 1949
Between May 1948 and the end of February
1949, in the course of the 1948 war, 1 the
staff of the Jewish National and University
Library at Hebrew University collected
some 30,000 books, manuscripts and
newspapers that were left behind by the
Palestinian residents of western Jerusalem. 1
About 6,000 of those books were then
‘loaned’ to the National Library’s Eastern
Studies department. 2 Furthermore, in 1948
and the following years, the employees
of the Custodian of Absentee Property
gathered some 40,000-50,000 books from
the cities of Jaffa, Haifa, Tiberias, Nazareth
and other places. Most of these books –
largely textbooks found in the schools and
warehouses of the British mandate – were
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 7 ]

later resold to Arab schools. Some 450 were handed over in 1954 to the National
Library’s Eastern Studies Department. Around 26,000 books suffered a worse fate:
in 1957, it was decided that they were “unsuitable for use in Arab schools in Israel,
[because] some of them contained inciting materials against the State, and therefore
their distribution or selling might cause damage to the State” 3 . These texts were sold as
paper waste.
This untold story of the fate of Palestinian ‘abandoned’ books clearly demonstrates
how occupation and colonization is not limited to the taking over of physical space.
Rather, it achieves its fulfilment by occupying cultural space as well, and by turning
the cultural artefacts of the victims into ownerless objects with no past. Israel’s
collection of Palestinians’ books marks the transformation of a lively and dynamic
Palestinian culture into museum artefacts. Thus, Palestinian’ books were placed within
the shrine of Israeli libraries, fossilized on the shelves – accessible and at the same
time completely lifeless. 2
Two central issues will be discussed in this essay. First, it will retrace the months
during which the staff of the National Library followed in the wake of the soldiers,
moving from house to house in search of books and intellectual assets that had been
left behind when thousands of Palestinians fled their homes. The second issue to be
discussed is the conflicted handling of these books – their sorting and classification –
in the years to come.
An image guides my investigation, an image that is by no means fictional. Zionist
fighters march along, followed closely by the librarians of the National Library who
are gathering up the books from all the houses of the neighbourhoods of western
Jerusalem – Katamon, Musrara, Talbiya, Bakaa, the German Colony. The soldiers take
over the houses, ‘mop up’ the area, eradicate resistance and secure the roads, while
the librarians, some of whom are serving in the standing army and others who are
‘civilians’ (exempt due to their age or because their work was considered essential),
assemble the cultural and intellectual assets. The librarians emerge from a seemingly
marginal role allotted to them by history, to become part of creating the state’s story.
The work of librarians is facilitated by military action – thus, we have the above-cited
letters of gratitude from library officials to the army and the Custodian of Absentee
Property, whose cooperation was crucial.
Simultaneously, and even as the project was underway, I imagine the first seeds of
hesitation, pangs of conscience and misgivings begin to sprout: are the books ours?
What should we do with them?Are we, the employees of the National Library, looting
the books or only keeping them safe temporarily? If we were to return the books to
their rightful owners, how much should we charge for our efforts?
[ 8 ] FEATURES Ownerless Objects?

But in the midst of war, these hesitations do not affect the enthusiasm and efficiency
of the library staff in carrying out their mission, or their belief that they are engaged
in acts of salvation. And indeed, we must ask: would these books have been preserved
had it not been for the vigorous efforts of these clerks, most of whom were only new
immigrants from central Europe?
The second issue I wish to explore is the library’s conflicted handling of these books:
on the one hand, facilitating a systematic and ongoing separation between the books
and their owners by sorting and cataloguing them into the ‘property’ of the library
and, on the other hand (in a seemingly opposing mindset) keeping the books together
in the National Library’s storerooms marked by a special signature. In the 1950s, the
collected books were marked by the names of their owners whenever possible. In the
1960s, however, the cataloguing system was dramatically altered, erasing the names of
the owners and replacing them with a new signature, “AP” (“Abandoned Property”).
This was a significant change: the books’ connection to their owners was severed, but
the new signature prevented the books from becoming an integral part of the library’s
collections – defacto preserving the Palestinian memory.
Confronting the Past, Silencing Culture
Between December 1947 and September 1949, some 670,000 to 760,000 Palestinians
fled or were expelled from the towns and over 500 villages occupied by the Jews
during the 1948 war. In recent years, following the declassification of most official
political documents of the State of Israel, disclosure of private documents, and
the consolidation of a new critical consciousness, much has been written in Israel
about the war’s catastrophic outcome for the defeated. The works of historians
and sociologists, including Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe, Benny Morris, Idit Zartal, and
Baruch Kimmerling, have contributed significantly to this subject by confronting
and exploring the past. We know much more today about the refugees and the way in
which the State of Israel prevented them from returning to their homes. We even know
much about the scope of the refugees’ assets, property, land and factories that were
looted, expropriated and sold, initially to the army and later to the highest bidder. 4
However, little research has been done on the tragic implications of the war for
Palestinian culture. This limited attention to the destruction of Palestinian culture is,
interestingly enough, common to both Israeli and Palestinian discourse.
On 30 April, 1948, renowned educator and Christian Arab writer Khalil Sakakini
fled his home in the Katamon neighbourhood in Jerusalem one day after the
neighbourhood was taken over by Haganah forces. His diaries, which have been
partly translated into Hebrew, reveal to Israeli readers a fairly broad picture of life in
Palestine, beginning with the optimism of the 1920s and ending with the miseries of
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 9 ]

war and exile in Egypt, where Sakakini died in 1961. In his escape from Jerusalem,
Sakakini left behind not only his house and furniture (the grand piano, electric
refrigerator, liquor cabinet and narghilah), but also his books, to which, two months
after he had settled in Cairo, Sakakini bade farewell with emotion and pathos:
Farewell, my library! Farewell, the house of wisdom, the abode of philosophers,
a house and witness for literature! How many sleepless nights I
spent there, reading and writing, the night is silent and the people asleep…
goodbye, my books!... I know not what has become of you after we left: Were
you looted? Burnt? Have you been ceremonially transferred to a private or
public library? Did you end up on the shelves of grocery stores with your
pages used to wrap onions? 5
We now know what became of that library: Tom Segev, who made Sakakini one of the
protagonists of his book on Palestine during the British Mandate, notes in a footnote
what he learned from Sakakini’s daughter, Hala, who in the summer of 1967 visited
the Jewish National and University Library with her sister and discovered there her
father’s books scrawled with his handwritten notes. 6
Palestinian Books: Collection and ‘Guardianship’
On 10 and 16 June, 1948, the first two letters were written that specifically referred
to the gathering of Arab books. The first is a letter sent by Hebrew University
administrator David Senator to the Jewish Agency’s directorate for “urgent discussion”
at the “appropriate Israeli government ministry”. A memo written by Kurt Warman,
director of the National Library, and entitled “on the urgent need for a central
custodian authority for handling the matter of public and private abandoned books and
libraries” was attached to Senator’s letter. In the memo, Warman implores the Israeli
government to grant the National Library the status of:
a central certified authority, whose task would be to handle the issue of
abandoned libraries, whether private or public… [Because] in our opinion,
the National Library is the most suitable institution for reception and
guardianship of the aforementioned books. The National Library has the
means to see that the books are properly preserved, and to return them to
their rightful owners, should such come forward. 7
The second document, dated 16 June, is a short eight-line letter written by Yisaschar
Yoel, Warman’s deputy. The letter, which is a report on the National Library’s
condition, concludes with the following words: “Our book collecting project reached
the Musrara neighbourhood yesterday.” 8 How can we interpret these two documents,
the first a measured administrative argument for authority and guardianship to
[ 10 ] FEATURES Ownerless Objects?

preserve Palestinian books, the second a brief sentence from the ‘field’ where the
books are being acquired, the formerly Palestinian neighbourhood of Musrara, near the
walls of Jerusalem’s Old City.
I find these documents odd and unexpected. 9 What is meant by Warman’s memo,
which throws us immediately into the deep water of the issue of ownership? And
what lies behind Yoel’s ten words mentioning the collection of books so incidentally,
apropos other things? At this moment I think of the limitations of this research,
and perhaps – if I am not overreaching – of the boundaries limiting the work of
the historian: her dependency on documents, and all the documents that she does
not succeed in finding (due to inability or overflowing archives or simply missing
what one is seeking). I once again ponder Yoel’s ten words: I am entranced by their
simplicity and openness, by the straightforward manner in which they lay before us
this historical event, in an almost naïve gesture. At the same time, I cannot but feel
troubled by the events, words and actions that lay behind them. 10 What are the books
in question? Who does the word “our” refer to? Who are the collectors? And where
did they collect books on the previous day?
It is necessary to read many more documents before we can answer these questions,
decipher them, and realize that these words characterize the entire affair of the
‘collection’ of Palestinians’ books: a constant and ongoing movement between
exposure and concealment, between explicit statements and vague, almost alienated
general rhetoric, which naturally plays a political role.
Owners on the Margins: The Question of Return
Warman’s memo explicitly mentions custodianship, not ownership. Between May and
the beginning of August 1948, the official treatment of the books was one of restraint.
In all the letters, reports and memos from this period, the staff of the National Library
reiterates the stance that the Palestinians’ books have been entrusted to the Library for
indefinite guardianship. In all of these documents there appear, if only in the margins,
legal owners who may one day return. I believe it would be wrong to claim that the
books’ owners were the primary concern of the National Library’s employees although
they may have believed that the books would one day be returned. This may explain
why the Library’s eagerness to receive the books has not yet taken on an overtly
possessive shape.
Here is where the work of interpretation is essential, but also where the act of
interpretation becomes so charged. Some would consider Dr. Warman’s appeal to the
Custodian a testimony of his careful treatment of the books and his sincere efforts
to ensure the property’s safety and preservation. I, on the other hand, am inclined
to read these words – with their urgent claim for ownership only two weeks after
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 11 ]

the collection project had begun – as revealing a man indifferent to the implications
and context of his actions. Where others may see restraint, I mostly find an efficient,
disturbingly cold professionalism. And even if we assume for a moment that Warman,
a product of German education and 19 th -century positivism, yearned for the “good
order of things”, doesn’t this desire itself prompt an uneasy feeling? Furthermore,
Warman’s stated objective was to prevent chaos in the collection of books. There is,
of course, much logic to Warman’s demand that one authority should be appointed to
handle, sort and distribute the books, and it was not unlikely that this authority should
be his own. He himself notes:
The National Library possesses the mechanism most capable of handling
all the problems, which are many and very often complicated, having to
do with these books… [and it also possesses] the biggest catalogue in the
country which makes the bibliographical identification and processing of
the books easier. 11
He adds that, as the books are in Arabic, “the National Library employs the most
experienced expert librarians for this sort of literature, as well. In passing, Warman
also mentions:
The absence of an official authority recognized by the civilian and military
leadership has significantly obstructed and is still obstructing the rescuing
of the books. Among the many difficulties that stand in our way, there
should be mentioned the inappropriate phenomenon of competition between
different public institutions over the find.
Remarkable in this last sentence is not only its rhetoric, which turns the act of
confiscation into an act of ‘rescuing’ and the books themselves into a ‘find’, but
also the matter at hand. It is clear there was a struggle between various institutions
seeking to obtain the books, as well as greed among these institutions (some only
recently founded) and impatience with the appropriation and distribution of the books.
Warman’s appeal “of the most pressing urgency” may have been born, in fact, from his
interest in the prestige of the National Library in a competition with other libraries and
government offices, as well as his own ambitions and professional career.
This document seems to point to some of the book affair’s most obvious
characteristics: a mixture of arrogance, greed and indifference hidden under the
guise of professionalism; the inseparable combination of occupation and passion for
acquiring possessions; a fear of losing books; but also a banality of action, where the
extraordinary becomes an ordinary matter of administration.
[ 12 ] FEATURE Ownerless Objects?

A Safe Place for ‘Magnificent Arab Libraries’
In July 1948, western Jerusalem was under Jewish control and of the thousands of
Palestinian residents of the western city, only about 750 non-Jews remained in the
area, mostly non-Arabs. 12 The issue of looting and robbery by the conquering army
was discussed by the Jewish public. Al-Hamishmar newspaper reported the conquest
of the village of Malha, its reporters denouncing increasing looting and robberies. At
the beginning of the month, the paper reported a new law, the “Emergency Regulations
(Absentees’ Property)”, which obligated registration of absentees’ assets, noting
that “finally, the police chiefs and city leaders have waged a war on the looting and
robbery… Katzin Sofer, the head of the Jerusalem Police, has announced that great
efforts are being carried out to find those responsible for the pillaging in the occupied
territories in Jerusalem; those efforts have already yielded some initial results.” 13
On 26 July, we find a letter to Dr. Warman, the head of the National Library, by an
unknown writer:
According to my estimates, 12,000 books or more have been collected so far.
A large portion of the libraries of Arab writers and scholars is now in a safe
place. Several bags of manuscripts, whose value has not been evaluated yet,
are also in our hands. Most of the books come from Katamon, but we have
also reached the German Colony and Musrara. We found some magnificent
Arab libraries in Musrara. We also removed from Musrara part of the
Swedish School’s library. The winds have not yet quieted in this area, but I
hope we can continue there in the coming days. After Dr. Unger complained
to me that we have not tried hard enough to save medical libraries, I took
out in the recent days the library of the health department in the German
Colony. The Israeli Government’s Jerusalem Health Department was quick to
claim it, but we are in negotiations and I hope we can reach an agreement…
several days ago, the university allotted for this action 2-3 of its workers.
This has improved the productivity of the project which until now has been
in the hands of only three people: Goldman, Eliyahu and myself. And even
those did not do it daily, but in intervals. We received a room at Bergman’s
house, and also discovered a small storeroom in Itingon’s house. These two
rooms have solved the problem of space for now. 14
This letter provides us with some important details: it notes the number of books that
have been collected in the first three months of the city’s western occupation; it specifies
the neighbourhoods from which the books have been taken; and it discloses that books
were not only taken from private houses, but also from public institutions, in this case
the Christian Arab School in the Katamon neighbourhood. In addition, the letter implies
disagreements between the librarians as to which books should be collected, and also
indicates the government’s eagerness to grab the plunder despite issues of ownership.
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 13 ]

Two other things seem worthy of mention. First, here we are witnessing a moment that
strikingly illustrates the way in which one culture emerges from the ashes of another;
the ruin of Palestinian culture is the birth moment of a new Israeli consciousness based
not only on erasing the Palestinians’ presence, but also on erasing their culture. Once
the culture is erased, one can claim that it never existed – there is nothing to contradict
or refute this conception. 15 Second, this letter not only underscores the act of takeover,
but also its rhetoric: the books, which have been scattered everywhere, have finally
come to rest in a safe place.
Processing Arab Books: A Right and a Service Rendered
At about the same time that this letter was sent to Dr. Warman (perhaps a bit earlier)
the head of the Eastern Sciences Department at the National Library, Dr. Strauss,
published a memo entitled, “Processing the Arab books from the occupied territories”.
It was Strauss’ responsibility to receive the books, catalogue them and store them. His
words attest both to his excitement at the growing influx of books, as well as to his
resulting confusion and distress. It was a time of complete and total chaos; he found it
difficult to handle the thousands of books and sort them properly, and his requests for
help and more assistants have thus far been denied. In addition, the National Library
had been forced to relocate from the Wolfson Building on the Mount Scopus campus
to the Terra Sancta Building in western Jerusalem. The first part of the document
reads:
Since the National Library was granted the right to collect abandoned libraries
in the occupied territories and began a comprehensive operation in
Jerusalem’s Arab neighbourhood, nearly 9,000 books have been assembled.
The number of books that were brought to the library in this way is greater
than the number of Arabic books that have been collected by us throughout
the years of this institution’s existence. And not only this, but also among the
books that have been found in the occupied territories there is a substantial
number of books that have not been in our possession before, and many
newspapers (nicely bound) that are not in the National Library’s archive.
Seeing that when approaching this task we have before our eyes the possibility
of receiving some of the books as a fee for our services, indeed we
have been given the opportunity to expand our collections considerably.
However, in order to take advantage of this opportunity, we must invest
much work in arranging and processing the books, which are in the meantime
packed in sacks. Since the rules that would apply to these books have
not been set yet, it is fitting that lists are compiled in a manner that would
make it easier to reach an agreement in case the books are returned to their
previous owners. For the authorities (the Israeli government and military
governors) we shall provide lists that include the name of the author and
[ 14 ] FEATURES Ownerless Objects?

of the book alone, and for the libraries’ owners also there is no need to go
into more detail. Taking into account that our work is currently not being
carried out in the National Library itself, and since it is possible that the
books will once again be placed in crates and carried to Mount Scopus, it
would be advisable to mark each book with the same number that would
appear on the lists… in order to make it easier to select the books we are
to receive as a fee for our services – if such an arrangement is agreed upon
– the list should be divided according to the subjects the books belong to,
such as old and modern literature, humanities, sciences, etc. 16
The expression “The National Library has been granted the right” is very important,
because it indicates that the collection of books has been carried out with official
and military permission. It is also important because of its sanctimonious tone,
which bleaches the sin by turning the library into a passive body. However, I want to
concentrate on what I feel is the most important concept in this letter, the term “fee
for services rendered”. How are we to understand it? Is this a spectacular display of
sophisticated apologetics, the rhetorical trick of an administrator conscious of the fact
he is writing an official, perhaps even public, document and who is therefore trying
to conceal his eagerness to adopt the books under the cloak of future distribution
arrangements? Alternately, is it possible that Strauss honestly believed that the
National Library had performed an act of grace and salvation, and therefore deserved
a reward for its efforts? Either way, it is clear that Strauss, like his colleagues,
recognized the value of the books, coveted them, and had no intention of giving them
up easily. If we have any doubts, the following sentences in the memo make this clear:
If a substantial number of these books is given to the National Library, we
would be able to dramatically expand our research opportunities. Doubtless,
we have first to bring into the National Library those books that are not
currently in our possession. As for the other books, we are mainly interested
in classical literature publications… examining the books that have come
into our hands therefore requires library processing with exact awareness
of our needs, and it should be noted that in this aspect, the Eastern Department
at the National Library far surpasses similar institutions in the rest of
the Near East countries that, although they are wealthy in books, are not
adequately organized and do not allow the reader and the researcher the
kind of work that can be done here. 17
The conditional that appears at the beginning of the quote should not distract us from
the fact that Strauss had a solid answer to the question of what should be done with the
books; in fact, it underscores it.
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 15 ]

The National Library and Orientalisation
The book looting cannot be understood without first tracking the history of the
National Library. Since the establishment of the Hebrew University in 1925, the
National Library had been intended to serve both as an archive for Israeli and Jewish
culture over the years, and – in the words of Chaim Nahman Bialik who spoke at the
university’s groundbreaking ceremony – to serve as a place whose windows are “open
to the four winds… to bring to it all that is good and sublime from the fruits of man’s
creative mind in all times and in all countries.” 18 This attitude is what allowed Arab
texts, including scripture, literature, science, and foreign language books, to become
integrated in the National Library, namely to become part of ‘our’ knowledge of the
East. In short, discussion of this book affair cannot be complete without returning to
Edward Said, who taught us that the Orient (like the Occident) is not a fixed fact of
nature – they are both the creation of man. Said would probably have claimed that
the books were orientalised not only because they were discovered as ‘oriental’, but
also and mainly because it was possible to force them into becoming ‘oriental’. He
also would have reminded us that this book affair is related to that enormous chain
of power relations and interests, supervision and control, that decides who should be
allowed to talk (represent the Orient), and who will remain silent, voiceless, devoid of
the opportunity to represent himself.
The role played by the Eastern Department of the National Library in the looting of
Palestinian books expressed two of its functions. On the one hand, it was home to
celebrated Orientalists, Zionist intellectuals who were educated at Middle Eastern
studies departments in Britain and Germany (Dr. David Bennett, Prof. Guthold Weill,
etc.), scholars who were not only librarians, but also central figures at the Oriental
Studies Institute in Hebrew University and for whom the collection of these books
was part of a wider task of mapping and understanding the East. On the other hand,
the department accommodated Arab librarians 19 as well as librarians from eastern
countries (mainly from Iraq) in the daily work of collecting and cataloguing the books.
Their work once more reveals to us how the eastern Jews, themselves the object of the
Israeli and Ashkenazi establishment’s orientalism, have become major players in the
oppression of the Arabs. 20
In Love with Plunder
Strauss’ memo is also notable for its quick adjustment to the new situation, including
a daring leap towards the creation of the ‘obvious’, where the books are not ours,
but yet are already entirely ours, only months after the process of their collection
began. A similar process was occurring not far from the National Library in the new
government offices, as Benny Morris delineates in his book about the creation of
[ 16 ] FEATURES Ownerless Objects?

the refugee problem and the dispossession of refugee property. The workers of the
National Library did not know what to do with the books initially, and therefore
made various statements about their possible future return to their owners, subject to
hard-to-meet conditions and restrictions. After a while, no one was willing to discuss
seriously returning the books to their owners, who were already far from Jerusalem at
that point.
I wish to complete this short chronicle of the pillaging of the books with one last
document. 21 Its importance lies in the manner that it bleaches and purifies this sin,
until no sign of violence and wrongdoing remains. It is not only the occupation, the
expulsion of the Arabs and the taking of their libraries that evaporate, but also the
pangs of conscience, if such ever existed (and I believe that they did), that disappear.
Those who read this document without knowing the history of the war might easily
come to think that the Palestinians left their houses willingly, for some reason leaving
behind tens of thousands of abandoned books for the staff of the National Library to
rescue fearlessly.
The National Library publishes an annual booklet entitled, The National Library’s
News, detailing the institute’s major recent acquisitions, relevant academic
publications, and information about other events of importance. In the report for the
period between January 1948 and June 1949, it says:
Throughout the years of fighting, the National Library has collected tens of
thousands of abandoned books, thus saving them from ruin. This operation
has been carried out with dedication and sacrifice on the employees’ part.
We wish to take this opportunity to thank the people of the army and the
custodians of the relevant government ministries, for their great help and
the understanding and love they have shown, and are still showing, to this
important work. 22
According to this description, Palestinians should be grateful and cherish the Zionist
librarians’ momentous efforts: if it hadn’t been for them, who knows what would have
become of their libraries? The document goes even further, however, implying that the
Palestinians’ books never had any owners in the first place. The books were simply
‘found’, scattered at the mercy of passersby, an anonymous pile of books one might
stumble upon in the street.
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 17 ]

The Owners of the Objects
Following is a partial list of the dozens of book-owners whose names appeared on the
report submitted to the National Library’s directorate in March 1949: 23
Ajaj Nuwaihid – Bakaa
Hanna Sawida – Katamon
Khalil Baydas – Bakaa
George Sai’d – Bakaa
Michael Kattan – Bakaa
Saliman Sa’ed – Bakaa
Aref Hikmet Nashashibi – St. Paul St.
George Khamas – Katamon
Khalil Sakakini – Katamon
Henry Kattan – Bakaa
Attorney Saa – Musrara
Yousef Heikal – Katamon
Tawfik al-Tibi – Katamon
Francis Khayyat – Musrara
Hagob Malikian – Talbiya
Emil Salah – German Colony
Z. T. Dajani – Railroad station neighbourhood
S. A. Awad – Katamon
Fuad Abu Rahma – Katamon
Adel Hasan al-Turjeman – St. Paul St.
Niqola Faraj – Musrara
M. Hanoush – Talbiya
And the list goes on and on, a fading remembrance booklet of the lost and looted
books of Palestinians and Palestinian culture. Can they be saved from oblivion?
Gish Amit is a PhD student and a lecturer in the Hebrew Literature Department at Ben Gurion
University.
[ 18 ] FEATURES Ownerless Objects?

Bibliography
Ginzburg, Carlo, “Checking the Evidence: The
Judge and the Historian”, Critical Inquiry, vol.
18, no. 1, 79-92.
Kimmerling, Baruch, Immigrants, Settlers,
Natives: State and Society in Israel – Between
Multiculturalism and Culture War, Tel Aviv, Am
Oved Publishing House, 2004. [Hebrew]
Morris, Benny, The Birth of the Palestinian
Refugee Problem, 1947-1949, Tel Aviv, Am
Oved Publishing House, 1991. [Hebrew]
Pappe, Ilan, “The New History of the 1948 War.”
Theory and Criticism 3, Winter 1993, 99-114.
[Hebrew]
Said, Edward, Orientalism, Tel Aviv, Am Oved
Publishing House, 2004. [Hebrew]
Shafrir, Dov, A Flowerbed of Life, Tel Aviv,
Agricultural Center Publishing, 1975. [Hebrew]
Shlaim, Aviv, The Iron Wall – Israel and the Arab
World, Tel Aviv, Yedioth Ahronoth Publishing
House, 2005. [Hebrew]
Shunami, Shlomo, On Libraries and
Librarianship, Jerusalem, Reuven Mass
Publishing House, 1969. [Hebrew]
Zartal, Idit, Death and the Nation – History,
Memory, Politics, Israel, Dvir Publishing House,
2002. [Hebrew]
Endnotes
1
State Archives, Jerusalem, (hereafter SA) GL-
429/3.
2
Most of the books are still kept in the storerooms
of the Jewish National and University Library in
Jerusalem.
3
SA GL-1429/5.
4
Tamar Berger, Dionysus at the Mall (Israel:
Hakibbutz Hame’uhad Publishing House, 1998)
[Hebrew]; Tom Segev, 1949 – The First Israelis
(Jerusalem: Domino Publishing House, 1984)
[Hebrew]; and Dalia Habash and Terry Rempel,
“Assessing Palestinian Property in West Jerusalem”’
in Jerusalem 1948: The Arab Neighbourhoods and
Their Fate in the War, ed. Salim Tamari (Jerusalem:
The Institute of Jerusalem Studies & Badil Resource
Centre, 1999) 154-183.
5
Khalil Al-Sakakini, This is the Way I Am,
Gentlemen!, Translated by Gideon Shilo (Jerusalem:
Keter Publishing House, 1990) [Hebrew] 239-240.
6
See Tom Segev, Days of the Anemones, the Land
of Israel During the British Mandate (Jerusalem:
Keter Publishing House, 1990) [Hebrew].
7
Hebrew University Archives, Jerusalem (hereafter
HUA), 042/1948.
8
National Library Archives, Jerusalem (hereafter
NLA), 793/200.
9
As a researcher I feel that I should defend myself
from them, in light of what appears to me to be open
and unrestrained aggression, which instantly throws
me into the heart of this affair. Had I been given
the privilege, I would have preferred to become
acquainted with the events of those days more slowly.
I would ask the documents to show patience, I would
urge them to reveal themselves in a more measured
way. However, they are manifestly raring to go, and
they demand from me – almost force me – to move
faster.
10
To put things differently, I believe that the magic
in these words is somehow connected to a certain
kind of inner contradiction. They tell us, without
embellishment, everything we wish to know, and at
the same time they make us feel as if so much has
been left beyond our reach. They tell us so much, and
at the same time so little.
11
NLA 793/200.
12
See Nathan Krystall, “The Fall of the New
City 1947-1950”, in Jerusalem 1948: The Arab
Neighbourhoods and Their Fate in the War, ed. Salim
Tamari (Jerusalem: The Institute of Jerusalem Studies
& Badil Resource Centre, 1999) 92-146.
13
Al-Hamishmar, 1 July, 1948.
14
NLA, 793/200.
15
I think, for instance, of Hirbet Hiz’a by the Israeli
novelist S. Yizhar. Even there, in the heart of this
brave attempt to reveal things that have been buried
and repressed, the Arabs remain farmers. And I also
think of myself, the son of a bourgeois, middle-class
family, with parents who voted for Meretz their entire
lives. Did I ever encounter in my childhood the names
of Arab novelists? As far as I can remember, I did not
even imagine it.
16
NLA 793/200.
17
Ibid.
18
Menachem Megidor, “Preface” in Hidden
Treasures – From the Collections of the Jewish
National and University Library, eds. Rafael Wizser
and Rebecca Palsar (Jerusalem: Hebrew University,
2000) 7 [Hebrew].
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 19 ]

19
I recently had the opportunity to speak with two
of them, Aziz Shihadeh, an attorney from Nazareth
who worked at the library from 1963 to 1966, and
Butrous Abu Manneh, a professor of Middle Eastern
history at the University of Haifa, who worked at the
library from 1956 to 1958. Shihadeh told me of:
big sacks of flour containing books. We knew
that these were books of Arabs from 1948. The
sacks were put behind the department’s reading
hall. We would get dozens of sacks, sometimes
even a hundred, and catalog them.
GA: Did this bother you?
AS: No, at that time it did not bother me. The
person is more important than the book. If the
people have been exiled and dispersed across
the world, what good does the book do? It’s good
the books were not burned. There are people who
would have burned them.
GA: Why do you think the books were not
burned?
AS: The Jews appreciate the book. They are a
civilized people. They are not barbarians. And
besides, had the books been left to the street
children, they would have ransacked or destroyed
them. People in the street would not have
valued these books. (Aziz Shihadeh, meeting in
Nazareth, 28 Feb., 2007)
Abu Manneh told me similar things: “I appreciate the
initiative to bring together and preserve these books.
This really is a civilized act – or else the books would
have been lost. I’m sure that the act was sincere and
based on the notion that at stake were cultural assets
that should be preserved. The people of the library
were decent.” (Butrous Abu Manneh, meeting in
Haifa, 14 March, 2007)
20
In this context, and in the current stage of my
work, I cannot help but think about the fact of my
being an Israeli. I thought about it when I met with
Knesset Member Jamal Zahalka, who approached the
National Library several years ago with a request to
return Khalil al-Sakakini’s books, a request which
was answered with the following reply: “We are
unable to discuss your request until the list of books
is handed to us.” (Needless to say that such a list
could have only existed in the hands of the National
Library.) Zahalka was courteous and tried his best
to assist me. However, and for no apparent reason, I
could not help but feel that he was looking me over
with suspicion and that his tone was tinged with irony
towards me, a somewhat questionable interviewer,
seeking to speak on behalf of those whose voice
had been taken from them, and at the same time a
descendent of the disinheritors.
21
NLA, 793/200. A last note: this study owes its
existence to archives. Two things occur to me in this
context. First, the gap between the chaos of war, at
least as it is usually conceived, and the methodical
nature of documentation. I am convinced that there
are many things of which nothing has been said,
and of which nothing remains: undocumented
conversations, letters that were lost forever, oral
agreements and operations that went unmentioned.
However, I cannot but be impressed by the plentiful
documents kept in the archives, which I believe reveal
more than just the mechanism of administration.
Secondly, much has been said about the power of
the archive, its incessant aggression and the varied
ways in which it serves the regime. All this is true,
but still, archives may also undermine the same order
on whose behalf they are supposed to function. These
spaces, which zealously preserve the incriminating
testimonies and the evidence that might, some day,
indict their owners, could undermine teleological
narratives which unravel in a seemingly undisturbed
manner. Because it is the documents, so zealously
kept, which expose the breaks, the rifts, the cuts and
the transformations that imperial history seeks to
hide. By preserving remnants and partial, incomplete
objects, archives have the power to act against
imperial history and at the same time lead us towards
more fragile, uncertain dimensions.
22
It seems that since then, this version of events has
become fixed in the National Library’s consciousness.
In an exhibition that was held in 1965 marking 40
years since the Hebrew University’s inception, the
1948 war was given a place of honor. However,
the book affair was summed up very simply in
the catalog: “During the Liberation War, many
abandoned Arab books were found.” (The National
Library, An Exhibition Marking 40 Years Since the
Hebrew University’s Foundation (Jerusalem: The
National Library and the Hebrew University, 1965)
36).
23
SA, GL-1429/3.
[ 20 ] FEATURES Ownerless Objects?

The Trade in
Palestinian
Antiquities
Morag M. Kersel
The Tomb of the Shepherd of Moses in the
Judean desert was recently excavated by
looters and left as depicted here.
Photo credit: Adel Yahya/PACE
Today, a visitor to Jerusalem can visit
a licensed dealer and lawfully purchase a
piece of the past, courtesy of the legallysanctioned
(under prevailing Israeli
legislation) trade in antiquities. This
trade is fuelled by a supply of antiquities
acquired via both licit and illicit channels. 1
Despite numerous studies 2 showing a
direct relationship between the demand for
archaeological material and the looting of
archaeological sites, the current government
of Palestine is also considering a legalized
sale of antiquities. 3 The origins of the legal
sale of antiquities in Israel and Palestine can
be traced back to the Ottoman occupation of
the region, which encouraged the movement
of artefacts from the hinterlands to the
capital. The legal precedents for the trade are
also a legacy of the Mandate period, during
which the British Mandate government
established both the legal and logistical
framework for the current antiquities
scheme in Israel and the proposed law in
Palestine. Although historically entrenched,
is the continued use of these legislative
legacies the best mechanism for protecting
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 21 ]

the cultural heritage of the region? In this paper, I consider the ramifications of
cultural heritage law and practices which authorize a trade in antiquities–the historical
antecedents, the current practice, and the future initiatives–theoretically aimed at
protecting the past for future generations.
The establishment and implementation of laws is not without its tribulations, whether
in the past or present. Archival evidence from the British Mandate period illustrates
many of the problems and pitfalls associated with the execution and oversight of the
managed trade in antiquities in Palestine during the Mandate. Many of the challenging
elements of the trade discussed in the correspondence and records of the Mandate
Department of Antiquities continue to plague the current licensed trade in antiquities
in Israel; they portend similarly vexing issues of an ill-conceived law in Palestine.
Through archival documentation and oral histories with the various participants in
the legal trade in antiquities, this study considers the legal genesis of the existing
and proposed antiquities laws in Israel and Palestine. Integral to an investigation of
these laws is the question of ownership and control of the past, and the future sale of
archaeological artefacts in the region.
Owning the Past?
Christian, Jewish, and Muslim pilgrims have long been enticed to the land of the
Bible. As early as the second century CE, the first Christian pilgrims from various
parts of the Roman Empire began to arrive in Palestine to recreate the lives of Jesus
and the Apostles. The efforts of Helena, mother of the Emperor Constantine were
among the first attempts to identify the sites of the Bible. Helena was not content
to merely walk in the footsteps of Jesus, but wished to find the actual locations of
Biblical events and to enshrine them for future pilgrims. 4 With this began the era of
Byzantine pilgrimage. 5 The motivations of these early intrepid travellers extended
beyond visiting sites, but for the first time the associated archaeological artefacts
began to take on significance–they signified a place associated with the Bible and were
to be venerated wherever their final resting place.
Bones of saints, garments and shrouds of New Testament figures and virtually
every sort of relic associated with famous biblical personalities were dug
up, bought, sold, and highly prized for their spiritual and healing power. By
the end of the fourth century CE, the export or ‘translation’ of relics from
the Holy Land had reached enormous proportions. 6
Early pilgrims were encouraged by church officials to acquire relics, establishing the
mechanisms for buying and selling sacred paraphernalia and creating an important
source of revenue for the monastic and religious establishments in the Holy Land.
[ 22 ] FEATURES The Trade in Palestinian Antiquities

Hebron Cottage Industry. Source: M. Kersel
Pieces of the True Cross, Jesus’ burial shroud, vials of Mary’s milk, and body parts of
the various saints were sold at the various religious institutions frequented by pilgrims.
The value of these relics and the myriad conflicting claims to possession of identical
relics led to an even greater emphasis on the objects themselves. A small cottage
industry for the production of relics to meet market demand grew up in the areas
surrounding the religious sites (Bethlehem, Hebron, and Jerusalem). 7
The Muslim rulers of the seventh century CE onwards made no real objections to
continued Christian pilgrimage to the area, until the destruction of the Church of
the Holy Sepulchre in 1009 by the Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim. The ensuing Crusades
were a battle for the ancient shrines and artefacts of the region; trade in relics and
seasonal religious tours continued and acted as manifestations of economic and
political connections between European cities and the trade networks of the region.
Control over the various very lucrative religious sites became a central issue in many
international struggles throughout the Middle Ages and Ottoman period.
The subsequent growth of antiquarianism in the eighteenth century gave rise to a new
secular interest in the area. The once purely religious interest in the Holy Land began
to give way to a more down-to-earth curiosity about its artefacts, monuments, plants,
people, and ruins. Those on the Grand Tour collected to fill their cabinet of curiosities
rather than expressly for religious reasons. Explorers avidly amassed samples of
classical statuary, coins, and pottery. Academic understanding of the history of the
region was for the first time independently expanded through the study of material
artefacts. The interest in acquiring artefacts for scientific purposes, coupled with
the continued demand for religious relics and icons fuelled the trade in antiquities,
although the trade went unregulated and there were no governmental mechanisms
in place to protect the cultural heritage of the region. Public awareness of artefacts
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 23 ]

as commodities, consumer demand and perceived threats to the material past played
integral roles in the development of the laws governing legal and illegal trade.
Later legislative efforts of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent British Mandate
government in the area sought to rectify the depletion of relics and the attendant
mining of archaeological sites to supply the ever-increasing demand.
Legal Antecedents
The Ottoman Law of 1884
In response to increasing foreign interest in the area and the looting of archaeological
material from the Empire, 8 an early Ottoman Antiquities Law was passed in 1874 for
the regulation of antiquities trafficking. This first antiquities law was primarily aimed
at foreign nationals and was written as a protection mechanism. A later Ottoman law
enacted in 1884 (1884 Law) established national patrimony (ownership) 9 over all
artefacts in the Ottoman Empire and sought to regulate scientific access to antiquities
and sites (excavation permits were required). Under the law, all artefacts discovered
during excavation were the property of the National Museum in Constantinople and
were to be sent there until those in charge made decisions about the disposition of the
finds. This law could be considered the first instance that archaeological material from
the region was deemed important enough to pass legislation to ensure its safekeeping.
Alternatively the law could be construed as legalized cultural imperialism 10 –motivated
by the Ottoman Empire’s desire to appropriate material from its territories rather
than for the preservation of the archaeological legacy of the region. By controlling
archaeological goods and taxing the antiquities sales in the periphery, the government
effectively regulated European access to heritage, access that had been previously
unfettered.
Most of the provisions articulated in the 1884 Law seemed reasonable, but practical
enforcement of this law was virtually impossible. The expanse of the empire was
so great that the Ottoman government did not have enough officials to oversee and
implement the various regulations of the 1884 Law and the inherent bureaucracy
often delayed excavation permits for almost a year. 11 Foreign excavators who
previously had unregulated access to the finds from their forays into the field were
extremely dissatisfied with the new provision that all artefacts had to be vetted by
the Imperial Museum in Constantinople prior to study and/or analysis. 12 In an effort
to curb the loss of cultural heritage from the empire, Chapter I Article 8 of the 1884
Law specifically prohibited the exporting of artefacts without the permission of the
Imperial Museum. Even with this provision, many foreign archaeological missions
and locals transgressed the law almost immediately after its enactment. 13 A complex
smuggling network, which included Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria, developed
and continued through the Mandate period until today.
[ 24 ] FEATURES The Trade in Palestinian Antiquities

At the turn of the early 20 th century the character of archaeological work in the region
underwent a methodological revolution with the beginning of stratigraphic excavations
at some of the most prominent tells in the region. Simultaneously, this period saw the
decline and collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the rise of competition for territory
by the various European nations with vested economic and political interests in the
area. The region comprising modern Israel and Palestine was ceded to the British after
World War I and in June 1922 the League of Nations passed The Palestine Mandate of
the League of Nations. The Mandate for Palestine was an explicit document regarding
Britain’s responsibilities and powers of administration in Palestine including:
“securing the establishment of the Jewish national home”, and “safeguarding the civil
and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine”. 14 The British Mandate period,
often referred to as the ‘Golden Age of Archaeology’ 15 , saw the establishment of an
efficient, centralized colonial government and the improvement of transportation and
communications throughout the region, as it became one of the most active centres of
excavation and archaeological research in the world.
Mandate Legislation
The British Mandate is conventionally seen as a separate period in the general and
legal history of Israel and Palestine. Prior to 1917, Palestine did not exist as a political
or administrative unit but was simply part of the greater Ottoman territory. The League
of Nations granted Mandate territories to the Western powers, which were to serve
as trustees, usually for a limited period of time, with the eventual aim of establishing
self-rule for the locals. 16 As trustees, the Mandate authority was charged with oversight
and protection of the cultural heritage of its territories. In one of its first actions, the
British Mandate government promulgated an Antiquities Proclamation in 1918, which
noted the importance of the region’s cultural heritage. In July of 1920, the Mandate
civil administration took over from the military and a Department of Antiquities
(DOA) was established with the objective of overseeing archaeology in the region.
With the enactment of the Antiquities Proclamation of 1918, archaeology and specific
archaeological sites took on a much more professional and bureaucratic legal status
superseding any religious or magical significance previously imbued through centuries
of pilgrimage. The British oversaw the establishment of the Palestine Archaeological
Museum 17 –built to house the administration of the DOA, public galleries, the archives,
a library, and to serve as a repository of the archaeological riches of the area. 18
Archaeologist John Garstang was appointed as the Director of the Department of
Antiquities for Palestine. As one of his first tasks as director, Garstang formulated
an Antiquities Ordinance for Palestine (AO 1920). In a report of his activities to the
Palestine Exploration Fund, Garstang 19 stated that “the Antiquities Ordinance was
based not only on the collective advice of archaeological and legal specialists, but
embodied the results of experience in neighbouring countries.” By using the 1884
Ottoman Law of Antiquities and the legislative efforts of the surrounding nations
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 25 ]

as a springboard, and in consultation with archaeologists and government officials,
Garstang established an antiquities ordinance vesting the ownership of moveable and
immoveable cultural heritage in the Civil Government of Palestine. The enactment
of this ordinance ensured that the protection and oversight of cultural heritage in
Palestine was carried out locally rather than from a colonial capital.
The primary goal of the AO 1920 was the protection of archaeological antiquities 20
and sites. The regulation of ongoing archaeological excavations was monitored by
the Department of Antiquities, as was the sale of artefacts. In response to criticisms
of the earlier 1884 Law by archaeologists and tourists regarding the lack of access to
archaeological material, a provision was included for the sale of material deemed not
required for the national repository–a decision to be made by the director of the DOA
and its advisory board. The department was given permission by the High Commission
to issue licenses for the trade in antiquities. In 1920, for the first time, a licensed trade
in antiquities was regulated and overseen by a bureaucratic entity–the Department of
Antiquities. Article 21 of The Palestine Mandate of the League of Nations of 1922
further cemented the right to scientific access for nationals and foreigners by insuring
access to excavations and archaeological research for any member of the League
of Nations. Scientific archaeological enquiry and the distribution of archaeological
material took centre stage during the mandatory period, embodied in Antiquities
Ordinance No. 51 of 1929.
In 1929, Antiquities Ordinance No. 51 (AO 1929) was enacted by the High
Commissioner for Palestine; AO 1929 now forms the basis for all current domestic
legislation concerning protection of cultural property in Israel and Palestine. 21 Under
this ordinance, the definition of buying and selling of artefacts is clearly spelled out
starting with a basic definition of “to deal”: “‘To deal’ in antiquities means to engage
in the business of buying and selling antiquities for the purpose of trade; and a ‘dealer’
is a person who is so engaged in that business.” 22 Specific guidelines for obtaining
licenses to deal in and export antiquities are outlined in the ordinance and in the
accompanying Antiquities Rules of 1930 (AR 1930). Article 4 regulated matters of
licensing, including: application procedures, duration of the license and criteria for
obtaining a license; duties of the DOA in oversight of the process; and the requirement
that each dealer inform potential buyers of the need to acquire an export permit.
With the establishment of these provisions and guidelines the previously unregulated
activity of selling artefacts was legislated. Palestinian and Jewish families who had
been in the antiquities business for decades now had to apply for official permission,
pay for a license, submit to inspections by the DOA and provide a detailed list of
their inventory and sales. Many of these requirements for the sale of antiquities are
enforced in the current trade in Israel. This system was/is not without its detractors.
[ 26 ] FEATURES The Trade in Palestinian Antiquities

After the Mandate
In the post-WWII period, after continued internal revolts in Palestine, the British
withdrew from the region and turned over the question of Palestine to the United
Nations. The United Nations partition plan of 29 November, 1947 divided Palestine
into Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem under international rule. Although the
Jewish community in Palestine acceded to the UN plan, Arab populations of Palestine
and neighbouring Arab states were disinclined to accept. In May of 1948, the state of
Israel was declared, eventually encompassing the territory granted to the Jews under
the Partition Plan and a substantial portion of that allotted to the Palestinians. Fullscale
war broke out between Israel and the surrounding Arab nations. By the end of
the war, about three-quarters of a million Palestinians had been expelled, or had fled,
from their homes, villages and towns. In the aftermath of the war, the Gaza Strip came
under the control of Egypt and the area known as the West Bank and part of Jerusalem
were administered by the nascent Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. This partition of
the region resulted in three legislative efforts governing the protection of the cultural
heritage, albeit all based on the AO 1929.
In the period immediately following Israeli statehood and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War,
the AO of 1929 remained the primary cultural heritage legislation governing the
Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and Israel. In the early days of statehood, Israel kept in
place most of the legislation enacted during the Mandate period. This reverence for
the status quo did not necessarily mean that Israel valued the British legal system,
but Israeli leaders wished to ensure a continuous legal framework to aid in nation
building. In the early days of the state, many of the deserted Palestinian villages
were destroyed–the empty villages were seen as a ‘silent reminder’ of a displaced
population. 23 The razing of these communities also impacted archaeological sites
and encouraged looting of the surrounding areas. 24 Reports of military looting of
archaeological sites and museums at places like Megiddo and Caesarea led to the
establishment of an Antiquities Unit in July of 1948, charged with oversight of the
archaeological heritage of the region. 25
The Law and Administration Ordinance (No. 1 of 5708-1948) of Israel reaffirmed the
AO of 1929 as the legislation covering cultural heritage protection. In the Gaza Strip,
the AO 1929 remained in force as it did under Jordanian oversight in the West Bank.
In all three areas, the trade in antiquities remained illegal unless the dealer obtained
a license from the respective department of antiquities. Similarly the export of any
antiquity was also prohibited without the approval of the director of the department of
antiquities in each of the three areas.
In the West Bank, the various provisions and regulations in the AO 1929 remained in
place until 1966 when Jordan repealed the ordinance, replacing it with the Jordanian
Temporary Law no. 51 on Antiquities 1966. This statute, which formed the basis
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 27 ]

for the fifth draft on Palestinian Cultural Heritage Legislation 2003 currently under
review, is very similar to the AO 1929. The 1966 law declares that antiquities are
considered the property of the state. Provisions for the export of and dealing in
antiquities are almost identical to the AO 1929, although the fines and penalties for
criminal offenses are substantially increased.
Since 1967, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have been subject to an occupying
military government, with military commanders in each area empowered with
administrative, governmental, and legislative powers. These powers were executed
through a series of Military Orders, two of which directly affected cultural heritage.
In 1973, the Israeli occupation authorities in the Gaza Strip introduced Military Order
No. 462 (1973). The order forbids the sale or transfer of any antiquity to a person who
does not reside in the Gaza Strip, without permission from the director of the DOA.
Permission might be granted with respect to a class of objects (Article 1); the order
also created a new criminal offense for anyone violating this provision. As they were
instructed under the AO 1929, dealers in antiquities are required to keep a register of
the items in each shop, and failure to comply results in a financial penalty.
In 1986, the Israeli occupying forces introduced another military order (No. 1166),
this one concerning antiquities in the West Bank. This order amended the Jordanian
Temporary Law No. 51 on Antiquities of 1966 and authorized the Israeli antiquities
staff officer for the West Bank to exercise most of the regulations contained in the
Jordanian law. In order to export any antiquities from the region (i.e., the West Bank)
permission must be granted by the antiquities staff officer (Military Order No. 1166,
1986: Article 7).
An interesting element in each of these military orders (nos. 462 and 1166) covers
the export of antiquities, which now requires a permit from the occupying authority.
Previous legislation in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (AO 1929) required that an
export permit be obtained for each individual artefact, rather than a blanket export
license as is required under the new military orders. This effectively weakens the laws.
The provisions of these military orders thus may actually facilitate the movement
of archaeological material across the borders for eventual sale in the legal market in
Israel. Recent reports indicate that the ease of movement of archaeological material
from the West Bank into the legal market in Israel in the late 1980s/early 1990s
allowed for some dealers to ‘legally’ replenish their dwindling stock. 26
Legislation in Israel
After years of discussion and wrangling, an Israeli antiquities law was finally enacted
in 1978 (AL 1978). An examination of the IAA archives uncovered correspondence
concerning the drafting of legislation and the long process of negotiation in order to
arrive at an antiquities law that satisfied most of the actors in the antiquities network. 27
[ 28 ] FEATURES The Trade in Palestinian Antiquities

During the development of the national law, archaeology in Israel metamorphosed
into a national hobby and a tool for enhancing social solidarity, with networks for
establishing national sentiment and allegiance. Israel founds its roots in the tangible
remains of the past. Archaeological focus shifted from questions of chronology and
typology to a larger inquiry into trade relations, social complexity, and the political
structure of past societies. Emphasis was on scientific endeavours seeking to add
to the global discussions of archaeological method and theory. 28 New arrivals to
the nascent state all wanted to dig up a piece of their heritage in order to connect
with their ancestors. The demand for antiquities was burgeoning. Simultaneously,
avid collectors like Teddy Kollek and Moshe Dayan were in positions of political
power, acting on behalf of the dealing and collecting communities to ensure that the
traditional enterprise of dealing in antiquities would be allowed to continue, and in
fact, be sanctioned by the government through new heritage legislation.
The AL 1978 has been considered both progressive and regressive. It has been noted
that during the 1970s when it was enacted, the AL 1978 legislation was considered
forward-thinking, particularly its requirement of full scientific publication for
archaeological excavations. 29 Contrary to the progressive understandings of the law,
however, the AL 1978 creates a paradoxical situation whereby excavation without
a permit is banned, but provisions for a trade in archaeological material acquired
prior to the enactment of the AL 1978 make Israel what has been referred to as a
“collector’s paradise”. 30 In conjunction with military orders no. 462 and no. 1166,
which potentially encourage the movement (with approval of the civil administrator)
of material from Palestine, this ironic situation ensures the perpetuation of the market
in antiquities–there is a seemingly unending supply.
In 1989, Israel passed another antiquities law, which established the IAA and
articulated the various bodies associated with archaeological site protection
(Antiquities Authority Law 5749-1989) or AL 1989. The preamble of the law states:
“The Law of the Israel Antiquities Authority states that the IAA is the organization
responsible for all the antiquities of the country, including the underwater finds. The
IAA is authorized to excavate, preserve, conserve and administrate antiquities when
necessary.” Chapter four, sections 25-26, establish inspectors and give them the right
to conduct searches of suspected offences against the AL 1978. Out of this provision
for inspectors developed the anti-theft unit, whose purpose is to oversee the licensing
of private antiquities dealers. The anti-theft unit ensures that licensed export is
permitted in accordance with conditions of the law and its regulations. This unit of the
IAA is responsible for inspecting commerce in antiquities.
In 2002, amendments were made to the AL 1978, which included some new directives
for dealers in antiquities. Added to AL 1978 were the statements:
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 29 ]

Chapter 4 Section 20
Presumption of Knowledge
20A: An antiquities dealer shall not acquire an antiquity except from one of
the following: (1) An antiquities dealer; (2) A person who holds authorization
from the Director in accordance with the regulations of paragraph 25,
unless that person is not obliged to provide notification in accordance with
the regulations of this law. 31
This is meant to ensure that, unless traders who routinely supply the antiquities dealers
in Jerusalem’s Old City are licensed dealers, their transactions are entirely illegal.
Amendments were also made to the export of antiquities which theoretically close the
loophole of exporting material from Palestine:
Chapter 4 Section 20
Restrictions on export of antiquities
22A. (a) A person may not bring into Israel an antiquity from the region
unless he has received approval to do so from the Director and in accordance
with the conditions of the permission; this permit can be personal or
general and only if the general permit is publicized in Reshumot 32 .
(b) In this paragraph, “region” means each of the following: Judea and
Samaria 33 and the Gaza Strip. 34
And yet recent accounts detail the complex networks of trade involved in selling
illegally-acquired items as legitimate artefacts in the legal marketplace. Artefacts
routinely arrive from Palestine, Jordan, Israel and elsewhere, enter a process of
laundering, and then are sold as ‘legally’ exported from licensed dealers in Israel. 35
The Israeli legal venue that allows the sale of illegally-excavated artefacts provides
an impetus for looting. Artefacts, many from the West Bank and Gaza, routinely make
their way into the legitimate marketplace through a system of laundering and reuse of
inventory numbers. Dealers are not required to provide export permits for the goods
they sell; the onus is on the purchaser to request one and if none is requested then
there is no real record of the sale (an export license is issued by the Israel Antiquities
Authority after the item has been verified as part of a registered dealer’s inventory).
The inventory number for the sold item can then be reassigned to a similar recentlylooted
item, thus laundering the artefact. Palestine has not yet enacted heritage
legislation prohibiting the movement of archaeological material across its borders, so
artefacts are entering the legal market in Israel at an alarming rate. 36
Palestinian Legislation
Following the Palestinian-Israeli agreement in 1993, Jericho and the Gaza Strip were
placed under the control of the Palestinian Authority (PA); subsequently in 1994 and
[ 30 ] FEATURES The Trade in Palestinian Antiquities

1995, the PA was given jurisdiction over areas of the West Bank. Under the Oslo II
Agreement there is to be a phased transfer of responsibility for archaeology from
Israel’s Civil Administration to PA. Although not strictly part of internal domestic
law, these agreements have serious implications for the protection of cultural
heritage and the administration of archaeological sites. Under the terms of the
handover, control of archaeology is limited to areas under the territorial jurisdiction
of Palestine (areas A and B, approximately 40 percent of the land), meaning that
Israel still maintains control of the administration of cultural heritage in some areas
of Palestine. Under Article 2(3) of the Oslo II Agreement, the PA is obligated to
prevent damage and to safeguard sites. The Palestinian Authority must also ensure
free access to archaeological sites, which are regarded as holy or which hold special
archaeological value (Article 2(7)). No such reciprocal provision is expected of the
Civil Administration and in some cases Palestinians are denied access to those sites
in Palestine under Israeli jurisdiction. 37 However, both sides are to undertake steps to
prevent theft from archaeological sites and to enforce prohibitions on illegal trading
to prevent the movement of material from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to Israel
and abroad (Oslo II Agreement Section 5.2). Furthering this goal, in 1996, Palestine
banned the legal trade in antiquities in the areas under their jurisdiction, effectively
putting dealers in Bethlehem, Hebron, Jericho, and the Gaza Strip out of business.
Established in the early days of the Oslo II Agreement, the Palestinian DOA inherited
the various legislative efforts (AO 1929, Temporary Law No. 51 on Antiquities of
Jordan, and Israeli military orders No. 462 and No. 1166) aimed at cultural heritage
protection. In an effort to combat any deficiencies, 38 loopholes and contradictions in
these laws, the Palestinian DOA has drafted legislation (5 th Draft Cultural and Natural
Heritage Law 2003) that “takes into consideration the scientific, legal and conceptual
development of archaeology to the present time.” 39 Although strengthening some
aspects of cultural heritage protection, the draft legislation is somewhat vague on
issues of national patrimony and the legal trade in antiquities.
For example, Article 3, under Objectives of the Draft Law, states: “This law aims at
enhancing and ensuring the protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage in Palestine
which belongs to the Palestinian people, in full respect of private ownership”
[emphasis mine]. This article is vastly different from the AL 1978, which states: “2. (a)
Where an antiquity is discovered or found in Israel after the coming into force of this
Law, it shall within boundaries fixed by the Director become the property of the State”
[emphasis mine] (AL 1978 Chapter 2 Section 2(a)). This leads to the question of
whether the new cultural heritage law in Palestine is a national patrimony law. 40 Later
Articles (7 and 8) covering private ownership, exportation, and the trade in antiquities
indicate that the private sale and ownership of cultural heritage is permitted but with
the permission of the Palestinian government, although there appear to be some
contradictions within the text.
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 31 ]

Later in the draft under Section IV Article 10, a set of articles prohibit the permanent
export of local heritage, the alienation of archaeological objects that cannot be ‘freely
traded’, and sets conditions for the disposition (sale) of local heritage, including
annual authorization. Section IV, Article 19(3) is the most relevant to the question
of whether Palestinian is considering a legal sale in antiquities. It reads: “The
Commission shall put in place a trade authorization system in local cultural Heritage
specifying the requirements, procedures, authorization fees, eligible persons, and
establishing the registers of cultural Heritage authorized for trade.”
During the course of my research, I was repeatedly told by archaeologists, government
employees, lawyers and heritage practitioners that Palestine was considering a legal
trade in antiquities. The sale of artefacts and relics has been a way of life for many
Palestinians families for centuries, many of whom moved their businesses to the Old
City after the Palestinian Authority banned the legal sale of artefacts in 1996. Of those
dealers registered by the IAA, 57 percent are Palestinian. Both Israeli and Palestinian
dealers told me that some of their most regular clientele are wealthy Palestinians
(either in the region or in the Diaspora). The impetus to establish a legally-sanctioned
sale of antiquities comes from both the business and private communities in
Palestine. 41 The drafters of the legislation are convinced that the new law with the
provision to trade in antiquities will ensure greater protection of the cultural heritage
of Palestine. Added to this is the thriving legal market in Israel, which is, in part,
fed with looted artefacts from Palestine 42 and the potential for increased tourism as
normalcy returns to the region.
With the implementation of the AL 1978, the legally-sanctioned sale of antiquities
(from existing pre-1798 collections and inventory) became a bureaucratic entity.
Section IV, Article 10(3) of the draft legislation of the Palestinian Authority leaves the
prospect of a legal sale open to interpretation and future implementation. The entire
enterprise of a legal sale still bears the imprimatur of the landmark AO of 1929–the
legacy of the British Mandate period and the forces of tourism and consumer demand.
The distribution of archaeological material in the region is a long-enshrined practice in
the area and has become intertwined with national identity in both Israel and Palestine.
This enterprise, while a long-entrenched activity, is not without its detractors and
logistical problems of oversight and illegalities, evidenced in both archival records and
current ethnographic accounts.
Issues with the Trade: Archival and Ethnographic Evidence
Archival evidence from the period indicates that for the period 1 April, 1930 to
31 March, 1931, there were 23 licensed dealers from cities and towns throughout
Palestine (Acre, Gaza, Haifa, Hebron, Jaffa, Jerusalem, Nazareth, Safad, Tiberias),
[ 32 ] FEATURES The Trade in Palestinian Antiquities

with over half located in Jerusalem (52 percent). 43 In 2003-2004, there were 60 dealers
licensed by the Israel Antiquities Authority, most of whom (75 percent) are located in
Jerusalem’s old city.
Archival evidence depicts the conscientious nature of the Department of Antiquities in
carrying out inspections of the various dealers. In a letter dated 10 April, 1930 to the
director from the Inspector of Antiquities, he states:
In accordance with your instructions, I have inspected all dealers’ shops in
my district and withdrawn all invalid licenses. Have also inspected all of
the dealers’ stock and registers and [sic] would make observations regarding
registers as follows: Haj Abd el Hamid al-Afghany keeps his register in fairly
good order, giving in most cases the provenance and names of the vendors.
Mr. Attulah et Tarazy from Gaza, although giving provenance ignores in
most cases the vendors. Faidi Eff. Silchy does not use names in his register
at all and his dealings in antiquities being thus obscure. 44
Recently, when asked to comment on the permitting process, dealers (regardless of
their background–Israeli or Palestinian) were unanimous in their disdain for the current
licensing scheme. “They [the IAA] make us jump through a bunch of hoops (the register,
the inventory, and the shop inspections) because they want to show us who is boss and
who has the gun, and who is in charge” (Dealer 20). “They [the IAA] have it in for me
and make my life a living hell, always coming in when I have clients and asking to see
the register, denying me export permits, all for no reason” (Dealer 14). “Everyone knows
that the register system is just a system of falsified records. By everyone, I mean all of
the dealers and the anti-theft unit” (Dealer 8 but corroborated by Dealers 21, 27, and 30-
32). “I have a license in my window dated to 2001 [it was 2003 when I visited] no one
has ever said anything and I am not changing it until the inspector makes me” (Dealer
28). Interviewed dealers outline the disjunction between the renewal of the license, the
backlog of processing at the IAA, and the opening of antiquities shops in the Old City.
“I try to capitalise on the Christmas rush of tourists. If I have to shut because the IAA
hasn’t renewed my license I can lose valuable revenue. I stay open, even if I haven’t
received the official license, I know it will be months before an inspector checks and by
that time I will have my license. It works every year and I know that everyone does it. If
everyone else were open why would you close?” 45
When asked about the efficacy of the unit in the task of protecting the archaeological
sites on the region, one respondent replied “the theft unit is like using an aspirin to
treat cancer. It may provide immediate relief (and even that is doubtful) but not long
term sustainable protection” (Government Employee 2). Most of those familiar with
the work of the unit agreed that it is impossible for them to meet their directive due to
chronic understaffing and lack of financial resources.
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 33 ]

The archives of the IAA also contain information about the screening, regulation
of, and movement of archaeological material in Lebanon, Syria, and Transjordan.
Correspondence between June of 1935 and March of 1942 follows the escapades of
Mr. Alexander Rosh (alias ‘Holovtchiner’), a government officer in the Palestinian
Department of Immigration and Statistics who was in the habit of vacationing yearly
in either Egypt or Syria. As Mr. Rosh was an employee of the Mandate government,
his baggage would not be searched as a matter of courtesy. In a letter from a licensed
dealer in antiquities named T. H. Kalemkarian on 22 June, 1935 to R. W. Hamilton, the
acting director of the Department of Antiquities, he outlines how Mr. Rosh on various
occasion approached him with antiquities from Egypt. Ensuing correspondence
between the DOA and the Service des Antiquities in Cairo acknowledges that Mr. Rosh
did indeed export antiquities from Egypt, with permission, but as an unlicensed dealer
in Palestine he was in breach of Section 10 of the Antiquities Ordinance of 1929. 46
Nothing further occurs until a series of letters from 1941-1942 indicate that Mr. Rosh
has moved his operation to Syria. A letter from Hamilton to the Deputy Inspector-
General of the Criminal Investigation Department states:
One of my inspectors was informed recently by an antiquities dealer in
Beirut that Mr. A. Rosh of the Department of Immigration is still trading in
antiquities between Syria, Palestine and Egypt, without always obtaining
the licenses that are required by each of those countries. Mr. Rosh is not a
licensed dealer. 47
By March of 1942, the Palestine Criminal Investigation Department had collected
letters between Mr. Rosh and a dealer in Beirut, which confirmed Mr. Rosh’s guilt.
There is also correspondence documenting the DOA’s triumph in successfully putting
an end to Mr. Rosh’s illegal activities. 48
A number of letters (IAA Archives ATQ 20) from between 1928-1947 indicate the
DOA was heavily involved in monitoring the movement of illegal antiquities from
Syria to Palestine. The final piece of correspondence between the Palestine Police and
the Department of Antiquities indicates that some suspects had been identified:
I refer to your letter dated 29 September, 1947, regarding the illicit importation
of antiquities from Syria. 2. Mohamed Abdul Rahman Saleh is a native
of Silat-Ed-Dahr village in the Jenin Sub-District but resides with his son
Imrawah in Suk El Carmel, Jaffa. It is known that Mohamed makes frequent
visits to Syria. 3. I am informed that Mohamed, together with Abdul Majid
Haj Mohamed and Diad Kassem of Silat-Ed-Dahr village, are implicated in
the smuggling of ancient coins from Syria into Palestine when these articles
are in demand for use as adornments by Bedouin and Fellahin women. 49
[ 34 ] FEATURES The Trade in Palestinian Antiquities

Until the very end of the Mandate government, the importance of protecting cultural
heritage is demonstrated by on-going investigations into reports of illegal antiquities
smuggling. These thriving smuggling networks established during the Ottoman and
Mandate periods continue to operate in the present, according to recent oral histories.
When questioned about the origin of the material for sale in shops, many dealers
corroborated the documents in the archival material. The complex smuggling
networks established in Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, and Syria are still in use.
Artefacts are crossing the borders in diplomatic pouches and UN trucks and aid
vehicles (Archaeologist 37 and government employee 43). Dealers (1, 2, 32, 46, 57,
and 68) and looters (12, 15) in Israel, Palestine and Jordan confirmed that diplomats
purchasing archaeological material often stated that “they had no need for an export
license or any other type of legal document as the material was going home in a
pouch.” 50 Just as Mr. Rosh used his position within the Mandate government to move
archaeological material with ease, so do diplomats posted today in Israel, Jordan and
Palestine.
The examination of the British Mandate DOA archival material provides some record
of the day-to-day management of the trade, the illegal and legal elements of the trade,
the monitoring of regional and international movement of archaeological material, and
use of diplomatic status to facilitate that movement. These characteristics outlined in
the archival records act as harbingers of potential problems, drawbacks and successes
associated with the legal marketplace. Theoretically, this evidence would have been
(and still is) available to the drafters of the relevant cultural heritage protection
legislation in Israel and Palestine and may have aided in determining which articles
of AO 1929 and AR 1930 to retain and which to omit from future legislative efforts.
Additionally, the archival evidence sets the stage for substantiated problems with the
legal market, illuminating the weaknesses in the legislative legacies that are carried
on until today in the laws of Israel, Jordan and Palestine. Interviews conducted with
the various stakeholders in the trade in antiquities (archaeologists, collectors, dealers,
government employees, looters, and tourists) in Jordan, Israel and Palestine confirm
that many of the flaws in the licensed trade cited in the archival material exist today.
Who Owns the Past? Should There be a Trade?
The demand for archaeological artefacts from Palestine has existed for centuries.
In order to meet that demand, a flourishing trade in relics was established and
maintained. Historical precedence, legislative legacies and current governmental
efforts would suggest that the majority of the region’s inhabitants supported and still
do support a legal trade in antiquities, but is this really the case?
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 35 ]

In interviews conducted as part of my recent study of the looting of archaeological
sites and the trade in antiquities in the region, less than half the respondents support
a legal trade. And that faction consisted primarily of dealers and collectors–the
same interest groups in Israel that were influential during the drafting of the 1978
Antiquities Law and whom are involved in the draft legislation in Palestine. Some
supporters proffered the ‘art as ambassador’ position, arguing that by “allowing people
to collect increases our general knowledge, which may in turn lead to greater financial
support of archaeological endeavours in the region” (Dealer 1). Other dealers argued
“If people want to buy a reminder of their trip to the Holy Land, then we should
supply it to them and in turn we can make a living” (Dealer 13). “If I didn’t sell this
material people would still loot archaeological sites and someone else would come
along and get a license and sell the stuff to a tourist from America” (Dealer 29). So,
who owns the past? According to the archival material and recent interviews, the
answer is the State. And, it was and is the duty of the state to protect the cultural
heritage for the future.
While the legislative legacies of the region are historically deep-rooted, the jury is
still out on how best to protect artefacts and archaeological sites that are threatened as
a result of the unbridled demand for relics from the region. Through an examination
of archival materials, recent oral histories, and an historical analysis of the legal
precedents in the region, it is not difficult to see why a legal trade exists despite
evidence indicating a direct link to the looting of archaeological sites. As Palestine
prepares to implement a new set of laws, now is the time to reflect on the historical
motives and current initiatives in the hope that legislative legacies and the status quo
will not dictate the protection of cultural heritage. Instead a thoughtful examination of
what is best for the cultural legacy of Palestine will prevail.
Morag Kersel is a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada postdoctoral
fellow in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Toronto. This article is derived from
her PhD thesis at the University of Cambridge, License to Sell: The Legal Trade of Antiquities
in Israel (2006).
[ 36 ] FEATURES The Trade in Palestinian Antiquities

Endnotes
1
This research was generously supported by a
grant from the Palestinian American Research Center.
Many thanks go to all those who participated in
this study and to the Palestine National Authority
Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, the Department
of Antiquities in Jordan and the Israel Antiquities
Authority. All archival evidence is courtesy of the
Israel Antiquities Authority.
2
Hollowell, “Moral Arguments on Subsistence
Digging,” in The Ethics of Archaeology, eds. C.
Scarre and G. Scarre (Cambridge University Press,
2002) 69-96; Kersel, “From the Ground to the Buyer:
A Market Analysis of the Illicit Trade in Antiquities,”
Archaeology, Cultural Heritage and the Trade in
Antiquities, eds. N. Brodie, M.M. Kersel, C. Luke
and K. Walker Tubb (Gainesville FL: University
Press of Florida, 2006) 188-205; Kersel, License to
Sell: The Legal Trade of Antiquities in Israel, Ph.D.
thesis, Department of Archaeology, the University of
Cambridge, 2006; Smith, “Looting and the Politics
of Archaeological Knowledge in Northern Peru,”
Ethnos 70, 149-170.
3
5 th Draft Cultural and Natural Heritage Law of
Palestine, 2003.
4
Silberman, “Power, Politics and the Past: The
Social Construction of Antiquity in the Holy Land,”
The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, ed.
T.E. Levy, 9-23.
5
Here I am using Feige’s (Feige “Identity,
Ritual, and Pilgrimage: The Meetings of the Israeli
Exploration Society,” Divergent Jewish Cultures:
Israel and America, eds. D. Dash Moore and S.
Ilan Troen, Yale University Press, 2005, 97-106)
definition of pilgrimage – a journey leaving the
political and social centre of life in order to visit
a symbolic and religious center located on the
geographical periphery.
6
Silberman, 11.
7
In an interesting parallel, modern cottage
industries producing artefacts for the antiquities
market through both looting and modern manufacture
of replicas, exists in these centers at present.
See figure 1 for an image of a contemporary
archaeological replica manufacturer in Hebron.
8
This law was enacted shortly after the Pergamum
Altar was expropriated (Marchand, Down From
Olympus. Archaeology and Philhellenism in Germany
1750-1970 (Princeton University Press, 1996)).
9
National cultural patrimony laws are those
laws, which vest the protection and disposition
of the tangible cultural legacy by proscribing the
unauthorized excavation of archaeological sites, the
export of antiquities, or both (Brodie, “Historical
and Social Perspectives on the Regulation of the
International Trade in Archaeological Objects: The
Examples of Greece and India,” Vanderbilt Journal
of Transnational Law, 38, 1051-1066).
10
As defined by Edward Said (Said, Culture and
Imperialism (New York: Vintage Books, 1995),
cultural imperialism most clearly applies to the
experiences of countries whose national treasures
have been consistently looted over time, whose
ancient terrain has been destroyed by amateurish and
destructive excavations and whose history has been
defined largely by foreigners. In this instance, the
Ottoman Empire can be interpreted as the foreigner
defining the history of its territories - Palestine.
11
Gibson, “British Archaeological Institutions
in Mandatory Palestine, 1917-1948,” Palestine
Exploration Quarterly 131, 115-143
12
Bliss, The Development of Palestine Exploration
(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1906).
13
Shaw, Possessors and Possessed. Museums,
Archaeology, and the Visualization of History in
the Late Ottoman Empire (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 2003).
14
The Palestine Mandate of the League of Nations
1922 preamble.
15
Silberman, “Power, Politics and the Past: The
Social Construction of Antiquity in the Holy Land,”
The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, ed.
T.E. Levy, 9-23.
16
Likhovski, Law and Identity in Mandate
Palestine (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press, 2006).
17
Now commonly referred to as the Rockefeller
Museum, the PAM (officially opened in 1938) was
built through the generosity of John D. Rockefeller,
Jr.
18
Cobbing and Tubb, “Before the Rockefeller:
The First Palestine Museum in Jerusalem,” Tutela,
Conservazione e Valorizzazione Del Patrimonio
Culturale Della Palestina, Mediterraneum, ed. F.
Maniscalco, 2005, 69-79.
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 37 ]

19
Garstang, “Eighteen Months Work of the
Department of Antiquities for Palestine,” July
1920-December 1921. Palestine Exploration Fund
Quarterly Statement, April: 58.
20
Defined in the antiquities ordinance as (a) any
object, whether movable or immovable or a part
of the soil, which has been constructed, shaped,
inscribed, erected, excavated or otherwise produced
or modified by human agency earlier than the year
1700 CE, together with any part thereof which has
at a later date been added, reconstructed or restored;
(b) human or animal remains of a date earlier than the
year 600 CE, or (c) any building or construction of a
date later than the year 1700 CE, which the Director
may, by order, declare to be an antiquity (AO 1920,
Part I, Article 2 (1)).
21
Oyediran, Plunder, Destruction and Despoliation:
An Analysis of Israel’s Violations of the International
Law of Cultural Property in the Occupied West
Bank and Gaza Strip (Ramallah, Palestine: Al-Haq,
1997.
22
AO 1929, Article 2(1)
23
Kletter, Just Past? The Making of Israeli
Archaeology (London: Equinox, 2006) 44.
24
Ibid. 42-82.
25
Ibid. 28-30.
26
Dealers 3 and 17 as quoted in Kersel 2006b.
27
Israel Antiquities Authority ATQ 16/37
28
Gopher, Greenberg and Herzog 2002
Archaeological Public Policy Public Policy in Israel.
Perspectives and Practices. D. Korn editor, 191-203.
New York: Lexington Books.
29
AL 1978 Chapter 3 Section 12; Gopher et al
2002
30
Gopher et al 2002: 198.
31
Antiquities Authority Law Amendments 2002
32
The Reshumot is the federal register of Israeli
Laws.
33
The West Bank.
34
Antiquities Authority Law Amendments 2002
35
See Kersel 2006a.
36
See Kersel 2006a.
37
Incidents of this nature were reported in
various interviews with archaeologists, government
employees and local Palestinians.
38
None of the previous legislation deals with
ethnographic material and periods post-dating the
1700 CE benchmark date.
39
Taha 2002 Protection of Cultural Heritage in
Palestine La Tutela Del Patrimonio Culturale in Caso
Di Conflitto. Edited by F. Maniscalco, 265-270.
40
When I visited the Birzeit University Institute
of Law, Ramallah, where many of the framers of the
legislation are located, none was able to answer this
question, stating that it was up to the government of
Palestine to decide what heritage belongs to the state
and what belongs to the private citizen.
41
Both interest groups (business and private
collectors) are in agreement that the legal trade should
fall under the administrative duties of Palestine DOA.
Advocates for the legal trade in Palestine argue that
banning the trade will send it underground.
42
See Kersel 2006b and Kersel 2007, “Transcending
Borders: Objects on the Move,” Archaeologies – the
Journal of the World Archaeological Congress
Volume 3(2): 81-98, for further discussion.
43
IAA Archives ATQ 91
44
Letter dated April 10, 1930: IAA Archives ATQ 91
45
This statement was accompanied by the dealer
giving me a look of lunacy. Anyone who does not
open because they do not have a new license is
crazy.
46
Letter dated July 26, 1935: IAA Archives ATQ 91
47
Letter dated November 7, 1941: IAA Archives
ATQ 91
48
IAA Archives ATQ 91
49
Letter dated November 12, 1947: IAA Archives
ATQ 3/20
50
Diplomatic pouches can be large shipping
containers, which receive diplomatic immunity from
search and seizure.
[ 38 ] FEATURES The Trade in Palestinian Antiquities

Looting and
‘Salvaging’
How the Wall, illegal
digging and the
antiquities trade are
ravaging Palestinian
cultural heritage
Adel H. Yahya
Robbers have looted this Roman tomb near
the Jenin town of Qabatiya. A Palestinian
Authority excavation in Qabatiya uncovered
490 pieces of Ottoman silver.
Photo credit: Adel Yahya/PACE
Palestine’s archaeological heritage is,
as is the case elsewhere, a non-renewable
cultural resource. Although the land is
probably the most intensively excavated
in the world, much remains to be done
in the protection and management of its
heritage, which has been harmed by decades
of political instability and conflict. Since
1967, the occupied Palestinian territories
have remained comparatively ignored
by archaeologists, while neighbouring
countries like Jordan, Egypt, and Israel
continued to be extensively excavated.
The threats and challenges to Palestinian
cultural heritage are diverse, but they are
all quite serious and hard to solve. Some
of them, such as illegal digging, absence
of Palestinian antiquity laws, and a lack of
sustained national interest in this issue are
internal. Others, including the antiquity
trade, Israeli antiquity laws, and the series
of walls, fences and guard towers that Israel
is constructing throughout the West Bank,
are external threats. These combined threats
have devastated the country’s heritage,
with little yet done to confront them. A prerequisite
to confronting those challenges,
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 39 ]

and thereby devising a comprehensive plan to protect Palestine’s cultural heritage, lies
in a detailed analysis of the situation.
This intervention will focus on four different factors currently threatening cultural
heritage in Palestine. The first is illegal digging of antiquities or what we call
‘subsistence looting’. The second is the impact of the Wall as it continues its
devastating path throughout the West Bank. Third is the impact of antiquity laws,
and finally we consider the impact of the Israeli disengagement plan on Palestinian
heritage.
Illicit Digging: Looting in Your Own Backyard
Illicit digging of antiquities is probably as old as history itself, especially in countries
where human habitation stretches back into the Stone Age, as it does in Palestine. This
problem has been intensified in Palestine by decades of political instability and foreign
rule. According to a 1930s British Mandate survey, historic Palestine (Israel, the West
Bank & Gaza Strip) has a total of more than 35,000 large and small archaeological
sites (caves, ruins, tells, sanctuaries, quarries, towers, churches, mosques, etc.) from
all historic and prehistoric periods. The West Bank alone has about a third of those
sites (12,217) (see table below), many of which have been destroyed, particularly
since the occupation of the West Bank by Israel in 1967. The exact number of sites
robbed in the occupied territories since then is unknown, but it is estimated to be in the
thousands. 1 Grave robbers have even vandalized Moslem tombs like Maqam Hasan
al-Rai’ near Nabi Musa, although such tombs are known not to include burial goods of
any kind.
Identified West Bank Archaeological Sites and Features as of the 1930s
No.
of District
Name
of District
Size
of District
in km 2
No.
of villages
No.
of main sites
No.
of features
Total No.
1 Bethlehem 581 71 136 1,228 1,364
2 Gaza 371 42 44 140 184
3 Hebron 1,068 156 357 1,859 2,216
4 Jenin 586 96 212 537 749
5 Jericho 649 16 76 451 527
6 Jerusalem 332 51 181 1,386 1,567
7 Nablus 569 73 266 1,015 1,281
8 Qalqilya 151 35 53 418 471
9 Ramallah 782 80 347 1,788 2,135
10 Salfit 201 23 86 662 748
11 Tubas 415 23 130 359 489
12 Tulkarm 263 42 100 385 485
Total 12 5,968 708 1,988 10,228 12,216
[ 40 ] FEATURES VieLooting and ‘Salvaging’

Illegal Palestinian diggers usually work
in crews of four to ten people. They
excavate at night in order to evade
land owners and the police. They dress
in dark clothes and are usually armed
with sophisticated equipment like metal
detectors and tractors to dig deep into
the ground, but also shovels, picks, axes,
knifes and sifters. One or more members
of the group act as observers to keep an
A damaged shared tomb in Qarawa in the West eye out for any intruders, while the rest
Bank. Photo credit: Adel Yahya/PACE
dig. They usually do not search randomly,
but take their time to look for suspected
antiquities sites, searching for clues such as fig trees that flourish near underground
caves, broken ceramics on the surface and signs of hewn stones. They are in many
cases more efficient than archaeologists in terms of reading the terrain and knowing
where to look and what to look for. They have clues about stratigraphical digging and
often use archaeological terms to describe their finds, identifying them, for example,
as Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, Israelite or Roman periods. Some of them can actually
date finds with a certain degree of certainty. Most of them can distinguish between
Bronze Age, Byzantine and Islamic period materials and their dating is usually
accepted by antiquity dealers and buyers.
Subsistence Looting
Palestinian illegal excavators are mostly ‘subsistence looters’ who dig as a way of
surviving poverty. They sell finds to middlemen, who resell the goods to licensed
dealers in major cities like Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa at a healthy markup. It
is usually those middlemen and dealers who retain the lion’s share of the profits. 2
Grave robbers do not receive more than one percent of the retail value of their finds,
according to most estimates. 3 This is further illustrated by the fact that looting grows
at the same rate as unemployment. The phenomenon surged dramatically after the
outbreak of the al-Aqsa Intifada in October 2000 as a consequence of the closure of
the Palestinian areas by Israel which prevented Palestinians from getting to jobs in
Israel. The World Bank’s 2005 economic monitoring report showed unemployment
in the Palestinian Areas at 23 percent, with 43 percent of Palestinians living under
the poverty line. Some of those unemployed have turned to pillaging in their own
backyards, especially in areas rich with material culture like Sebastia near Nablus,
Gibeon (al-Jib) near Jerusalem, and the Hebron area. In 2001, Palestinian and Israeli
antiquities authorities reported a 300 percent rise in incidents of grave robbing. 4
Most Palestinian illegal diggers seem to have learned the skills of excavating and
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 41 ]

tomb robbing from foreign archaeologists working in the country, passing this
knowledge to their children and friends later on. A well-known grave digger from the
village of al-Jib (ancient Gibeon) named Muhammad told the author: “The people
of the village learned the nature of digging, and learned stratigraphy and layers from
Pritchard who excavated the village in the 1950s.” This does not mean, however, that
looting is a profitable business, or that local looters are getting huge financial payoffs
from their work. On the contrary, it is a tedious job that doesn’t compensate the
accompanying effort and risks. Besides the danger of being caught by police, grave
diggers face poisonous snakes and scorpions, as well as deadly insects. A digger from
the Hebron area in the southern West Bank named Munther told Reuters: “The most
frightening of all are the Jin [the ghosts]. I am not afraid of the soldiers or the snakes,”
he said. “I am only afraid of the Jin. Sometimes people become sick or go mad from
the ghosts.” He added, “We sometimes bring Muslim sheikhs – holy men – to recite
incantations to drive away the evil spirits from the tombs.” 5
Besides the suppliers, consumers are the main contributors to this destructive
phenomenon. They encourage looting by creating a market demand for antiquities,
and are therefore as guilty, if not more so, as the looters themselves. The main
consumers of Holy Land antiquities are usually foreign collectors who come to the
country as pilgrims and tourists. They make up more than 90 percent of the market
share, while Israeli and international museums that lack specific policies prohibiting
the purchase of unprovenanced artefacts consume the rest. Antiquity thieves are
looking mostly for gold, coins, glassware and ceramic pieces like oil lamps, clay
stamps and items bearing written inscriptions. These objects can sell for hundreds,
sometimes thousands, of dollars if they are found intact. 6 If, for example, they come
across a skeleton wearing gold or silver jewellery, they will break the skeleton to get
the bracelets or necklaces, and in the process destroy significant historical data.
Clearly, if there is going to be a solution or even an ease to the problem of looting,
changing the public’s attitude towards cultural heritage must come first. This means
changing the attitude of illegal excavators’ and collectors themselves, but more
importantly changing the general public’s tolerance towards those people and their
activities. We should stand firm against activities like illicit digging, grave robbing and
above all towards trade in antiquities, and reject any excuses presented by the diggers
and dealers to justify their actions. Such justifications usually vary from need and lack
of job opportunities, to reaching treasures before foreigners reach them. In fact this
later excuse is often cited by diggers to justify their illegal actions, and it is sometimes
accepted by the general public in the local communities. An excavator from al-Jib
accused the famous American archaeologist James Pritchard, the excavator of Gibeon
in the 1950s, of encouraging illegal digging 7 :
[ 42 ] FEATURES VieLooting and ‘Salvaging’

This man excavated the village at the end of the 50s, he came three or five
months, not the whole year, he would come in June or July and stay until
October, and then he would disappear together with his group. In the winter,
when the weather gets cold, the local people who worked with him would
start digging, but not in daylight, just at night. The people of the village
would object to that because diggers were destroying the land. But Pritchard
would encourage those people and give them money for their finds. Later
on those people started working for themselves. Pritchard was buying their
finds through a middle man from the area of southern Hebron. This man
would store all the finds in his home until Pritchard came back, and Pritchard
would take all the objects and pay him any money he asks for, no questions
asked. Other people were also selling him objects, and when he was not
around they were selling them to souvenir shops in Jerusalem.
Today’s archaeology is not about collecting objects but rather about collecting
contextual data. Furthermore, this problem is not confined to the West Bank, but
certainly spills over to Israel proper. As sites in the West Bank are being emptied,
some Palestinian diggers are crossing the Green Line that separates Israel from the
West Bank in search of more promising places to dig. In 2001, the Israel Antiquities
Authority’s anti-theft unit caught a Palestinian Authority policeman digging within
Israel. 8
The Israeli Wall in the West Bank
According to Palestinian Department of Antiquities estimates, the Wall that Israel is
constructing in the West Bank will isolate more than 1,500 archaeological sites and
features between the Green Line and the de facto western border of the Palestinian
areas created by the Wall. A further 1,250 archaeological sites and features are
threatened by the proposed Wall in the Jordan Valley. Thus, the Wall will potentially
isolate a total of 2,800 archaeological sites and features between it and the Green
Line – the internationally recognized border between Israel and Palestine (see table
below). This is no small number, representing 23.3 percent of all archaeological sites
in the Palestinian areas, and more than 12 percent of all known archaeological sites
in historic Palestine. The Palestinian Department of Antiquities also says that the wall
has destroyed partially or fully approximately 800 archaeological sites. This situation
will undoubtedly have a disastrous impact on Palestine’s heritage and on tourism,
because tourists come to this country mainly to enjoy its rich cultural heritage.
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 43 ]

Impact of the western separation wall on Palestinian cultural heritage
Area size (km2) 562
Percentage of West Bank lands 11%
No. of archaeological sites and features 1551
Including archaeological sites with high potential 255
Impact of the proposed eastern separation wall on Palestinian cultural heritage
Area size (km2) 1,619
Percentage of West Bank lands 31%
No. of archaeological sites and features 1,249
Total no. of sites affected by separation wall 2,800
Source: Personal communication with the Palestinian Department of Antiquities
Late in 2002, the Israeli official in charge of planning the Wall’s route testified in
court that changes may be required in its course for various reasons, among them
“archaeological factors”. To date, dozens of archaeological sites have been discovered
under the wall’s proposed route, and the Israeli military authorities have responded to
this challenge in three different ways:
•
•
•
The Wall’s route has in some cases been changed to avoid archaeological
sites by moving it deeper into the West Bank. Protecting ancient sites was
used to justify isolating those sites, possibly annexing them to Israel at a later
stage. Perhaps one of the most evident examples of land confiscation based on
archaeological and cultural heritage is Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem where the
Wall was purposefully re-routed in order to encompass the site. In the process, a
Muslim cemetery was isolated on the Israeli side of the Wall.
Excavations have been hastily organized and expedited to uncover artefacts and
move them to Israel before construction of the wall begins. Not only homes,
fields, olive, vine and almond trees that have been uprooted to clear the path
for the wall, but also material culture in the form of ancient artefacts in sites at
Zabuba, Shuweka, and Saffa.
In some cases, a thick layer of earth has been laid over sites to protect them
during the construction of the wall, as was the case with the Byzantine church
near Abu Dis, and in many sites in the Hebron area.
Following are a few case studies of West Bank sites affected by the Wall. They
are only one part of an ongoing effort by the Palestinian Association for Cultural
Exchange (PACE) to document the harm inflected by the Wall on Palestinian cultural
heritage.
[ 44 ] FEATURES VieLooting and ‘Salvaging’

Zabuba
In the village of Zabuba, north of Jenin and just a few kilometres from the Green Line,
the Wall was shifted eastwards to place archaeological sites on the Israeli side of the
Wall. This village has been inhabited for more than 4,000 years, and its surrounding
hills are dotted with remains of past civilizations. Excavations have uncovered ancient
population centres at nearby Megiddo and Tel al-Dhahab. Within Zabuba’s limits,
an archaeological dig was conducted by the Israeli Civil Administration in late 2002
in preparation for the Wall’s construction. In 2003, after completion of the Wall in
the Zabuba area, “Zabuba was completely cut off from those sites, adding insult to
injury after a history of accumulated dispossession,” stated Mohamad Jaradat, head of
Zabuba’s village council and owner of the land where the site is located. Jaradat, in an
interview with Jennifer Peterson from al-Jazeera, added, “They’ve taken our land and
our artefacts, it’s our heritage, and they’ve stolen it.” 9
Jaradat echoes the sentiment of Palestinian archaeologists who accuse Israeli military
authorities of destroying and looting the heritage of the country. For the people of the
village of Zabuba, this was “the latest instalment in the expropriation of the village’s
territory.” The village lost thousands of dunams of land in the Israeli-Jordan Armistice
Agreement of 1949. A decade later, another 2,000 dunams were shaved off for Israel’s
benefit, and a few more were confiscated when the Salem Military Camp was built in
1987. In 1999, Israeli authorities dug a ditch and set up a green metal railing along a
road marking the Green Line, taking another 31 dunams from the village. It was at this
point that Israeli builders stumbled upon the remains of an ancient structure. Using the
excuse of the Wall, a team of about 50 Israeli archaeologists returned to the site late in
2002 and dug six squares into the earth, uncovering curvaceous stone foundations and
broken pottery shards.
Shweika
In Shweika village, north of Tulkarem, villagers took their case all the way to the
Israeli Supreme Court, demanding that the Wall be pushed back to the 1967 border
along the Green Line. Several homes were to be cut off to the west of the Wall’s
proposed path, and the villagers argued against such a path based on humanitarian
grounds. The State of Israel responded, however, that a Pharaonic village had been
discovered on the land, and thus construction could therefore not be pushed back to
the Green Line. Instead, the Israeli government suggested that the Wall be constructed
just west of these homes, with only six meters between it and the homes, as a result
severing them from their land and the archaeological site.
Quffin
Similarly, north of Shweika, members of Kibbutz Metzer, located just across the Green
Line from the village of Quffin, petitioned the Israeli Ministry of Defence to push the
wall back to the 1967 border in order to avoid cutting villagers off from their land. The
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 45 ]

ministry appeared willing to accept the proposal, but then broke its promise, claiming
that due to the presence of antiquities and insufficient time to excavate them, the Wall
would have to remain east of Quffin’s cultivated fields.
There are over 100 major archaeological sites in the area between Zabuba and
Shweika, says the Palestinian Antiquities Department. The sites in this area date from
the Bronze Age to the Ottoman period, and include ancient dwellings and population
centres, as well as individual items including caves, tombs, rural castles and
agricultural equipment such as grape presses and farm roads.
Saffa
Located 17 km west of Ramallah, the village of Saffa has lost some 5,000 dunams
of land due to the path of the Wall. This area includes at least six identified
archaeological sites that will be either destroyed or separated from the village as a
result of the Wall. These sites are located to the west of the village and will surely be
annexed to Israel as soon as the wall is completed. These sites are:
Khirbet al-Amma: a Byzantine settlement with a defensive wall, stone cut burial
grounds, wine and olive presses, and mosaic pavements. The construction of the
Wall has destroyed the eastern and southern parts of the site.
Khirbet Krikur: a Hellenistic Roman site inhabited up until the early Ottoman
period. It is located west of the village and measures around 3,000 sq. meters in
area. The site includes several major archaeological features such as walls, wells,
and olive and wine presses. The site was hastily excavated early in 2005 to prepare
for the wall, which will be constructed right over it.
Khirbet Kresna: a site with Roman, Byzantine and early Islamic remains located
to the west of the village and measuring 1,500 sq. meters in area. The site has a
defensive wall made of massive stones measuring 3.5m in height. The site also
includes a number of caves, wine presses and water wells. Due to the course of the
wall, the site will be confiscated and likely used to enlarge the neighbouring Israeli
settlement of Labid.
Khirbet al-Dalia: a site with Roman, Byzantine and early Islamic remains, located
to the west of the village and measuring 7,000 sq. meters in area.
Khirbet Horia: a site with Roman, Byzantine, Islamic and early Ottoman remains,
located to the west of the village and measuring 7,000 sq. meters in area. The site
includes coloured mosaic pavements of churches and remains of a mosque. The
Israeli Department of Antiquities of the Israeli Civil Administration conducted a
large excavation at the site earlier in 2005 in preparation for the Wall.
[ 46 ] FEATURES VieLooting and ‘Salvaging’

Khirbet Fa’ush: This Early Roman site will most probably be destroyed because it
falls within the predicted route of the Wall.
Aboud Under Threat
In late December 2005, PACE conducted a survey in the area of Aboud, a village
northwest of Ramallah, in order to document the potential impact the Wall will have
on Aboud’s archaeological and cultural heritage. Based on the results of the survey
there is legitimate concern that the projected path of the Wall in Aboud endangers the
rich archaeological and cultural heritage of the area unless immediate action is taken.
The Western Hills of Aboud
The area west and north of Aboud, with its large assemblage of Roman temples, stonecut
tombs, olive presses and caves will be endangered by the construction of the Wall.
This is not only problematic from an economic perspective, as the whole area will be
isolated from the village, but problematic from a cultural heritage perspective, too. This
area constitutes the only ‘breathing space’ for the people of Aboud and has historically
been the site of the village’s economic industrial activities (e.g. stone quarrying, lime
production) and agricultural activities (e.g. vine cultivation, olive production, cereal
grain cultivation, animal husbandry). From ancient times, the people of Aboud have
utilized this area to support and maintain their economy. Agricultural areas threatened
by the projected path of the Wall include: She’b al-Iraq, which the Israelis confiscated
in order to construct a water tower for the settlements; She’b al-Bullat, and Khalat al-
Qadat (‘the Resting Place’), which has a sizable olive grove belonging to Aboud known
locally as Hareqat Nasser. The plain of Khalat al-Kadat, which has historically been used
to cultivate wheat and other cereal grains, has been left uncultivated as a result of its
isolation from the people of Aboud and proximity to the neighbouring Israeli settlement
of Beit Arieh. It will now be completely cut off from the village for good. Agricultural
sites such as these are important aspects of traditional Palestinian agrarian culture and
should not be underestimated in a discussion of endangered cultural heritage.
Tell el-Bullat
Located to the southwest of the village of the same name, Tell el-Bullat has numerous
stone-cut, plaster-coated wells. The major well at the tell is called ‘al-Assad’ (‘Lion’s
Well’), which, according to local tradition, was frequented by lions during antiquity.
In addition, Tell el-Bullat has several latuns (kilns used for the production of lime
from local limestone), which were once used to produce the main material used in
construction. Nearby is the area known as al-Qadat, a narrow inner plain surrounded
by hills used as a recreation area in history and today.
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 47 ]

Khalat al-Qadat
The most interesting and elaborate archaeological remains in the area that will be
cut from Aboud after the construction of the Wall are concentrated in and around
Khalat al-Qadat. The most interesting element identified in our survey was a pyramidlike
structure with exteriorly dressed stones measuring nearly 8x8 meters with
thick walls standing at a height of 2.5 meters. The walls of this structure are very
thick (approximately two meters), making the interior area a relatively modest 4x4
meters divided into two rooms. The first room upon entering the structure measures
approximately 2.5m x 4m and the anterior room measures 1.5m x 4m. A wall with a
door in the middle separates these two rooms.
The initial interpretation of this structure is that it is most likely an early Roman
temple. The architecture of the structure is consistent with other Roman temples
found in Palestine, particularly the Augustus Temple at Sebastia, although the latter
features dressed stone. This difference is probably due to the fact that Sebastia was a
royal city, while Aboud was a rural site. The small interior space is further indicative
of Roman or even Canaanite temples and excludes the possibility that the structure
served as a church or basilica, as the local people of the village refer to it. The interior
space would not support a congregation, as is typical in Christian worship, but would
be suited for worship conducted by high priests and/or the king, with the public
gathering for worship in the courtyard immediately outside the temple. The courtyard
area in front of this structure is quite large and littered with the remains of the original
structure, including the stone door frame and fragments of columns. An initial surface
survey in the vicinity of this structure revealed a few Roman shards; this should not be
considered diagnostic, however, as the land has been cultivated for many years.
Wine/Olive Presses
Approximately 200m west of the pyramid-like structure, the PACE survey team
identified several wine/olive presses carved into the bedrock. The most well-preserved
of these was a press measuring five meters in diameter, which was likely used for
both wine making and olive oil production. At the northern end of the press are three
collection points for the pressed liquids. The liquid would run from the press through
channels carved into the rock and collect in one of three pits cut into the rock. The first
pit is circular, measuring 30cm in diameter; the second and third pits are rectangular
in shape, measuring 1m x 60cm each. All three pits measure approximately 30cm in
depth. The smallest pit was likely used as a primary collection point, with the second
and third pits being used to separate impurities from the wine or olive oil. Such a
system of purification would be particularly necessary in olive oil production, where
the oil would have to be separated from water.
The survey, conducted by a PACE team with the assistance of Ahmed Qasim, a 78-
year-old resident of Aboud and his grandson, located an artificial water pool with
[ 48 ] FEATURES VieLooting and ‘Salvaging’

interiorly plastered walls that is most likely dated to the Roman period. Surrounding
this structure were numerous mosaic floor remains. The preliminary interpretation
of this area is that it could be a pool surrounded by several public buildings; further
investigation is needed, however, to produce a more definitive interpretation.
This initial survey of the potential danger to archaeological and cultural heritage in
the Aboud region revealed several sites, such as Khalat al-Qadat and the water pool
surrounded by mosaics, that had not been previously identified in archaeological
surveys. The Wall threatens to isolate these sites and preclude their further investigation
and analysis.
Al-Jib (Ancient Gibeon)
On 9 August, 2007 a team from PACE visited the excavation conducted by the Israeli
Civil Administration in al-Jib to inspect the work, talk to the people of the village, and
confront the excavation team. The excavations were taking place at a ruin known locally
as Khirbet al-Sheikh, west of the village. The excavation team was made up of some
40 Palestinian labourers and a young Israeli archaeologist who had graduated from the
Hebrew University four years earlier. 10 He told us on condition of anonymity that he had
been digging at the site for a month and a half, and was to continue to do so for another
four to five weeks. At the same time, he was working on his Master’s thesis. No other
professionals (a registrar, surveyor, photographer, or other professionals) were on the
team, and he had to perform all of these tasks himself. The storage place of the finds was
Mishor Adumim near Jerusalem, and he was to study them in the winter months.
The archaeologist confirmed to us that he and the large team of Palestinian workers
were working for the Israeli Civil Administration Department of Archaeology headed
by Yitzhak Magen, who has served as the director of that department since 1981 under
the title “Staff Officer of Archaeology in Judea and Samaria”. 11 This department,
part of the military administration of the occupied territories, does not report to the
Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), which is the official Israeli body in charge of
archaeological activities in Israel and occupied East Jerusalem. Its licensing policies,
storage facilities and publications are all separate and independent.
The director of the al-Jib excavation told us that the site was being surveyed in
preparation for the construction of the Wall, which will eventually separate al-Jib
from the Jewish settlement of Pisgat Zeev. No architectural remains and a few
shards were discovered during the survey ; nevertheless, work on the Wall was
stopped and an excavation carried out. He called this a “salvage excavation” and
admitted that it could possibly affect the Wall’s final path. He also admitted that it
was being financed by the Israeli Ministry of Defence. He did not view his work
as political, however, referring to it as professional and even complaining from
“vandalism” by the local population, particularly on the weekends and after working
hours when there were no guards at the site.
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 49 ]

The excavation had uncovered what appears to be a small bathhouse from the late
Roman period, 300-400 A.D. The archaeologist believed that the bathhouse was
connected to an army unit due to its small size. He did not exclude, however, the
possibility of the existence of a nearby village, making this the bath of a private
house. The bathhouse included three rooms: hot, warm and cold. The excavation had
uncovered mosaic pieces in the bath area, but not complete mosaic floors.
The excavation had also uncovered an olive press from a later date, probably from the
Byzantine or early Islamic period. The excavators believe that, during this time, the
crushing of olives was carried out in the bathhouse. There are a series of rooms north
of the press, which are probably storage rooms. The excavator said that he believed
that the site was worth preserving but was almost certain that it would not be. “I’m not
optimistic that the site can be preserved,” he told the author.
The Antiquity Laws and
Their Impact on Palestinian Cultural Heritage
The problem of antiquity theft in the Holy Land is partially due to the antiquity laws
in force in the Palestinian areas and in Israel. The Israeli Antiquities Law, which
prohibits illegal excavations, allows the sale and trade in antiquities, as Morag Kersel
explains in her article in this volume. The IAA is in charge of the enforcement of the
Israeli Law of Antiquities in Israel proper only. This means that inside Israel, where
Israeli police are in charge, the law is generally enforced and illegal excavations
punishable in court. But in the West Bank and Gaza, where law enforcement is very
poor, excavations are carried out with impunity. The IAA grants about 300 excavation
licenses each year in Israel, and about 70-80 licenses to antiquity merchants each
year. 12 That explains, at least partially, why almost all objects in the market today
originate from the West Bank. Hananya Hizmi, deputy director of Israel’s Department
of Antiquities in “Judea and Samaria” (i.e., the West Bank), told the Jerusalem Post
in July 2005 that “all the antiquities come from Arab villages or areas controlled
by the Palestinian Authority.” 13 The problem has been exacerbated by the region’s
unrest since the outbreak of the al-Aqsa Intifada, which effectively ended cooperation
between Palestinian and Israeli antiquities police.
Except for a few exceptions, such as objects of national and historical value, objects
with writing, or stone works such as columns, ossuaries and sarcophagi, antiquities
can be sold and even shipped abroad, providing that they are registered and shipped
through a licensed dealer. With the collapse of security in the Palestinian areas,
robbers are working around the clock, Israeli dealers are making a lot of profit, and
antiquity markets in Israel are thriving. In the year 2000, estimates put the antiquities
trade of some 80 licensed dealers in Israel at close to $5 million. 14
[ 50 ] FEATURES VieLooting and ‘Salvaging’

The IAA has a small anti-theft unit that monitors the work of registered antiquity
dealers and the gangs of looters, and the Palestinian Ministry of Tourism has a
special tourist unit. Both departments are understaffed and poorly equipped to carry
out the tedious job of protecting antiquities in the country, however. The staff of the
specialized Israeli unit numbers less than a dozen full-time workers. The Tourist
Police unit of the Palestinian Authority is also small, and functional in only the major
cities of Bethlehem, Jericho and Nablus. Neither unit operates a network of informers
through which they could learn about major purchases, and only occasionally arrests
people trying to dig illegally or sell archaeological finds without a permit.
By and large, criminal penalties in the Palestinian areas and in Israel are not deterrents
to pillage. If convicted, illegal diggers receive short or even suspended sentences,
usually a small fine, although the law’s maximum penalty is up to three years in
prison. Courts in both countries are usually lenient on offenders of this kind. 15 There
is no limit to the number of archaeological items one can take out of the country,
and permits are issued free of charge if items are taken to the Antiquity Authority’s
headquarters at the Rockefeller Museum in East Jerusalem where they can be
authenticated and registered. The Authority has even opened an office at the Tel
Aviv airport to register artefacts taken away by tourists and collectors. The IAA has
the right to confiscate items barred from export, even if an object is not technically
an antiquity as defined by law (anything older than 200 years), but in practice, the
authority does not enforce its permit policy for individual artefacts and turns a blind
eye to tourists taking small numbers of antiquities.
Outlawing the Trade in Antiquities: The Power of the Lobby
In a 1989 article on looting in Israel, archaeologists David Ilan, Uzi Dahari and
Gideon Avni declared that current antiquities laws in Israel are not helping to protect
antiquities in Israel, let alone in the Palestinian areas. The authors suggested outlawing
the trade in antiquities to remove the main incentive for plundering antiquities. 16
Like most Palestinian and Israeli archaeologists, they argued that if antiquities trade
is outlawed, dealers will no longer be able to operate, and theft from archaeological
sites will stop because looters will lose the incentive to dig. The Israeli dealers’ lobby,
which has included very influential public figures such as Teddy Kollek, ex-mayor
of Jerusalem and former defence minister, the late Moshe Dayan (who accumulated
an extensive private collection through unauthorized and unscientific digs using the
Israeli army), as well as curators at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem and the Eretz
Museum in Tel Aviv, maintains that if such law is passed, the antiquities trade will
simply continue underground, as in other countries where it is outlawed such as Egypt,
Turkey, Greece, Italy, Cyprus and Jordan.
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 51 ]

That may be true, but conditions in those countries are not nearly as bad as they are
in Israel, or disastrous as in the occupied Palestinian territories. According to the
IAA, over 100.000 artefacts are sold in Israel yearly. 17 In the year 2000, agents for
the IAA uncovered a container filled with hundreds of ancient artefacts ready to be
shipped to the United States. It was believed to be one of the largest illegal shipments
of antiquities ever detected. All the artefacts are believed to have been pillaged
from archaeological sites in the West Bank. The finds included hundreds of pieces
of ancient pottery, glass and bronze items, coins, carved stonework, and more. 18 In
another incident, agents of the IAA confiscated more than 700 artefacts, most of which
were plundered from tombs around Jerusalem, Beit Guvrin (Sandahanna, Asqalan)
and the Judean Hills. The artefacts contained hundreds of very well-preserved Teta
drachma coins from the Hellenistic period, as well as hundreds of bronze coins,
dozens of beads, gold earrings, scarabs, figurines and stoneware, most of it from the
Biblical period. In 2002, authorities found 15 tons of stolen antiquities in the home
of an Israeli from Caesarea; the cache included marble pillars from the Roman period
and a Jewish coffin made of stone. 19 The collectors’ lobby has been able thus far to
pressure the Israeli parliament not to change the laws that allow them to continue
buying antiquities on the open market. They are certainly aware that almost all of
these objects originate in the occupied territories.
Managed antiquities markets that officially sanction the trade in artefacts are legal in
only a few countries in the world, including the US and Britain. Except for Israel, all
countries of the Middle East and the Mediterranean region decided long ago to ban
the trade in antiquities. In the Palestinian areas, an antiquities law under discussion
appears to favour legalizing the trade in archaeological artefacts. If that law were to
be passed by the Legislative Council, it would be a disaster for Palestinian cultural
heritage, particularly because the West Bank has no regulated market for antiquities
and any future market will be subsidiary to the flourishing Israeli antiquities market.
If Israel Disengages: The Gaza Example
In 2005, Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza and small areas of the West Bank caused
Palestinian archaeologist to worry that numerous priceless archaeological sites and
artefacts would also be removed. According to international law, it is illegal for an
occupying power to remove ancient artefacts, movable and immovable, from an
occupied land. The pretext that Israel has used to justify its activities, however, is that
Palestinians are unable to safeguard ancient sites in the West Bank and Gaza, where
looting is common.
In the course of the Gaza disengagement, for example, Israel threatened to remove
the John the Baptist mosaic from Gaza and take it to a museum in Israel. The John
[ 52 ] FEATURES VieLooting and ‘Salvaging’

the Baptist mosaic is part of a sixth century Byzantine church located in a then-Israeli
military installation in the northwestern tip of the Gaza Strip. It was discovered by
an Israeli archaeologist in 1999. The well-preserved 1461-year-old church measures
13x25 meters, and has three large and colourful mosaics with floral-motifs and
geometric shapes. Nearby is a Byzantine hot bath and artificial fishpond. The most
impressive mosaic is a multi-coloured medallion at the entrance of the church. Its
inscriptions say that the church was called ‘St. John’, after John the Baptist, and its
foundations were laid in 544. It also praises Victor and Yohanan, the mosaic’s donors.
Shortly before the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, an Israeli official told
the Jerusalem Post, “No decision has been taken yet to remove the mosaic, that
depends on how the dismantling of the military base goes.” He went on, “We will
do everything possible to prevent damage to the antiquities. The mosaics would be
removed to prevent damage; it is something that definitely can be done on the spot.
We will stop the work and remove it if necessary.” 20
Muin Sadeq, director general of the Department of Antiquities in Gaza, told the
Jerusalem Post that Palestinians’ concerns also stemmed from the 1974 removal by
the Israel Antiquity Authority of a sixth century Byzantine mosaic, called “King David
Playing the Lyre,” from Gaza City. The artefact now decorates the synagogue section
of the Israel Museum. Hizmi, deputy director of the Israeli Department of Antiquities
in the West Bank, maintained that the removal of the first mosaic was done to preserve
it, adding, “Maybe there was an intention then to return it, but it didn’t work out! I
don’t know why.” 21
In the end, Israeli authorities did not remove the mosaic, but the continued unrest and
instability in the Gaza Strip has Palestinian archaeologists worried about the wellbeing
of the mosaic. Palestinians recognize that looting is a major problem in the
Palestinian areas, and relate it to the total collapse of the Palestinian security system,
which Israel helped generate through its military attacks. Palestinians are demanding
the return of all archaeological finds that Israel excavated and transferred beyond
the 1967 lines, as well as Jerusalem’s Rockefeller Museum, which was established
during the British Mandate and called the Palestine Museum, and the objects that were
removed from that museum and taken to the Israel Museum in West Jerusalem and
other museums and collections in Israel.
Conclusion: Preventing More Pillage
Negotiations over archaeological issues took place as part of the Oslo Accords and
are supposed to be part of the final status agreement between the two parties. Like
all outstanding issues, the positions of Palestinians and Israelis on the subject of
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 53 ]

epatriating antiquities are still extremely divided. The Palestinians say that the
Israelis promised them a list of all artefacts taken from the territories in preparation
for repatriation, while the Israelis say the list is only for archaeological sites that
have been excavated, which has been already provided to the relevant Palestinian
authorities.
Palestinians use the Egyptian example as precedence for their claims. In 1994, Israel
returned to Egypt all antiquities from excavations conducted in Sinai since 1967, up
to the last pottery sherd, accompanied by scientific reports, drawings and photos. The
Israeli government recognized that the proper place for those antiquities is in Sinai,
but it remains to be seen if the antiquities of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip will be
repatriated in the same manner.
In the meantime, measures must be taken to prevent looting and the loss of
irreplaceable archaeological sites to the advancement of the Wall. Isolating sites
from their natural surroundings and excavating them in a hasty manner are not
acceptable archaeological preservation and protection methods. The Wall is damaging
archaeological sites and alienating the Palestinian people from their cultural heritage.
The World Archaeological Congress warned of this in 7 January, 2004, to no avail. If
left unchecked, these problems will evolve into a diminished future for a people that
have long flourished from their rich cultural heritage.
Adel H. Yahya is the director of the Palestinian Association for Cultural Exchange (PACE). For
more information, see www.pace.ps.
Endnotes
1
See David Ilan, U. Dahari and G. Avni, “Plundered!
The Rampant Rape of Israel’s Archaeological Sites,”
Biblical Archaeological Review (March/April) 38-
41.
2
Morag Kersel, “Archaeology’s Well Kept Secret:
The Managed Antiquities Market,” in SOMA 2003,
Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, eds.
C. Briault, J. Green, A. Kaldelis, Anna Stellatou
(Oxford: BAR International Series 1391, 2005) 81.
3
L. Borodkin, “The Economics of Antiquities
Looting and a Proposed Legal Alternative,”
Columbia Law Review 95, 377.
4
Dan Ephron, “The Tomb Raiders,” 2001,
http:www.msnbc.com/news/585402.asp?cp1=1.
5
See Megan Goldin, “Grave Robbers Ransack
Holy Land History. Hundreds of Archaeological
Sites Raided Every Year. http://www.msnbc.msn.
com/id/6718151, accessed 3 Sept., 2005.
6
Mark Schulman, “Rise in Antiquities Theft
Vexes Israel’s Indiana Joneses,” Christian Science
Monitor, 14 November, 2001, http.//www.csmonitor.
com/2002/1114/p18s01-stgn.html.
7
James Pritchard (1909-1997) led excavations in
al-Jib (Gibeon) from 1957-1962. A highly-respected
archaeologist and professor at the University of
Pennsylvania, Pritchard would almost certainly
not have engaged in activities he considered illegal.
However, the villager’s comment highlights the
way that a zeal for acquisition of artefacts –perhaps
particularly in the school of Biblical archaeology
–creates a demand that encourages illegal digging,
whether in the 1950s or today.
8
Scholman.
[ 54 ] FEATURES VieLooting and ‘Salvaging’

9
Jennifer Peterson, “Digging up Excuses for Wall
Construction,” 2004, al-Jazeera.net.
10
The name of the archaeologist has not been
disclosed here upon his request. He was concerned
that his employer had not authorized him to speak
to us.
11
Raphael Greenberg and Adi Keinan, The Present
Past of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Israeli
Archaeology in the West Bank and East Jerusalem
Since 1967 (Tel Aviv: SDAG, 2007) 16.
12
Schulman.
13
Orly Halpem, “Palestinians: Israel to Steal
Artefacts,” The Jerusalem Post, 21 July 2005.
14
Deborah Sontag, Stealing Millennial Loot in
Israel, From 2 Millenniums Ago, 2000, http://www.
library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/judmill.htm
15
See Orly Blumt, “The illicit antiquities trade:
an analysis of current antiquities looting in Israel.”
Culture without Context, Newsletter of the Illicit
Antiquities Research Centre (Issue 11, Autumn)
and J. Keyser, “Holy Land’s Ancient Sites Hit By
Looting. Archaeologists Say Region’s Troubles Lead
to Desperate Theft,” accessed at http://w.msnbc.com/
news/782447.asp?Osi&cp1=1.
16
Ilan et al, 41.
17
Blumt.
18
See Arieh O’Sullivan, “Increased Archaeological
Theft in Israel,” The Jerusalem Post, 29 November,
2000.
19
Schulman.
20
Halpem.
21
Ibid.
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 55 ]

Reparation for Lost
Palestinian Property
inside Israel
A review of international
developments
Leila Hilal
“The House of Windows” - an Arab
apartment building from the Ottoman
period. Musrara neighborhood.
Source: To Live in Jerusalem, p. 42
Nearly 60 years have passed since
Palestinians lost access to their properties in
West Jerusalem and other parts of historic
Palestine now under Israeli sovereignty.
Despite the United Nations determination
in 1948 that the “refugees wishing to return
to their homes and live at peace with their
neighbours should be permitted to do so at
the earliest practicable date” 1 , the nascent
State of Israel enacted laws to bar their
return and expropriate their property. To
date, Palestinians have not been allowed
to repatriate or repossess their properties
nor have they received compensation for
their losses. The injustice of the unresolved
dispossession is exemplified by the case
of former Palestinian residents of West
Jerusalem, many of whom live in East
Jerusalem within a few kilometres of
ancestral homes that remain intact but
occupied, often by recent Jewish immigrants.
This essay reviews the international principles
and precedents concerning Israel’s obligations
to make reparation for property taken – and
the corresponding right of Palestinians
[ 56 ] FEATURES Reparation for Lost Palestinian Property inside Israel

to claim remedies for their losses. It explains the implications these principles and
precedents have for a prospective process of property reclamation in Israel/Palestine.
In turn, it attempts to provide some guidance as to how property reparations may be
formulated and claimed in the future.
Reparation is a term of art under international law. It is often misunderstood as being
synonymous with monetary paymentswhen it is actually a reference to a wide range of
measures available to redress harm suffered by victims of conflict. As will be discussed
in more detail later, under international law, states are obligated to repair their violations
of law through the provision of remedies. The remedies or forms of reparation available
in the event of an international wrong include restitution (restoration of the status quo
ante) 2 , compensation (monetary payments), satisfaction (non-pecuniary or moral redress
such as an apology or prosecution of individual perpetrators) and rehabilitation (service
or care to victimized individuals or communities). These measures may be combined
and prioritized within a reparation program to facilitate a peaceful resolution of conflict.
The theory of reparations, which includes a diverse array of remedies, covers the
full scope of Palestinian suffering. However, because this essay is mostly concerned
with reparation for lost Palestinian property inside Israel, it focuses on restitution and
compensation, which are the two forms of reparation typically invoked to remedy the
illegal expropriation of property. Other forms of reparation such as a statement from
Israel acknowledging its responsibility for creating the refugee problem and recognizing
the rights of the refugees (moral satisfaction) are obviously important for reaching an
end of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians but are not addressed on these pages.
The recent international developments in the area of reparations and refugee return
briefly reviewed here shed light on how Palestinian claims for lost properties will be
organized and processed. As will be elaborated below, however, some fundamental
policy questions will have to be settled before the final details of the reparation process
can be determined. The fundamental questions include whether the original Palestinian
property owners will repossess their properties or receive compensation in lieu of
restitution. These kinds of questions should be posed to and answered by the rightsholders
themselves, but will ultimately have to be settled and implemented pursuant to a
negotiation process with Israel.
The issue of the fate of Palestinian properties inside Israel has commonly been
overlooked in favour of the more pressing issue of the right of return. In Palestinian
circles in particular, the issue of reparations for property losses, damages and other
suffering has been side-lined out of fear that claiming such remedies may be perceived
as relinquishing the demand for return. The right of return and restitution/compensation,
however, are formally independent rights. If a displaced person chooses not to return
to her country, she can still repossess her property in the place. Put in context, the
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 57 ]

ights of Palestinian land owners stand irrespective of their refugee status or their final
destination. 3 Even if Palestinians choose not to repatriate to what is now Israel, they
still have the legal right to repossess their properties. Of course, the modalities for
implementing restitution without return may present a practical challenge to policymakers,
but at a minimum, delving into the issue of reparations and property claims
should not be viewed as foregoing return. Rather, it is necessary to protect the full scope
of Palestinian rights and policy options for resolving the conflict.
The Principles of Reparation
The duty of states to make reparation for violations of international law was laid out as
a general principle of law in 1928 by the Permanent Court of Justice (the predecessor
to the International Court of Justice). In a landmark decision on the expropriation of a
German-owned nitrate factory by Poland, the world court held that every violation of
law generates an automatic obligation on the wrongdoing state to remedy the breach
(i.e., make reparation). In what has become the leading standard on reparation, the court
further ruled that:
The essential principle contained in the actual notion of an illegal act…is
that reparation must as far as possible wipe out all the consequences of the
illegal act and restore the situation that in all probability would have existed
had the wrong not been committed. Restitution in kind, or, if this is not possible,
payment of a sum corresponding to the value which a restitution in kind
would bear; the award, if need be, of damages for loss sustained which would
not be covered by restitution in kind or payment in place of it –such are the
principles which should serve to determine the amount of compensation due
for an act contrary to international law. 4
The court’s ruling thereby also affirmed restitution as the primary form of reparation
in the case of an unlawful property taking, with compensation as a complementary or
alternative remedy. 5
The obligation on states to amend their wrongs has evolved over time into a right to
reparation for individuals and communities. The international human rights law regime
established in the aftermath of World War II made individuals subjects of international
law, granting individual persons rights and remedies against excessive or abusive
state action. The founding document of the international human rights movement,
the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR), includes a right to an effective
remedy by national tribunals for rights violations. 6 In parallel, following World War II,
Germany agreed to extensive reparation schemes for the State of Israel and individual
Jewish victims of the Holocaust. Prior to this, reparations had traditionally been made
[ 58 ] FEATURES Reparation for Lost Palestinian Property inside Israel

etween states for war-related damages. The German Holocaust reparation schemes
laid out a new precedent whereby individuals received reparations for mass human
rights violations directly from the responsible state. 7 The Holocaust reparation schemes
provided restitution and compensation to victims and their heirs for a wide range of
material losses and non-material damages, including lost opportunities. 8
Numerous reparation programs have since been established in different contexts to
provide redress to persons for past atrocities – ranging from an apology and one-off
compensation payments to Japanese Americans interned by the US government on
account of their race, to the property claims commissions in the Balkans following the
ethnic cleansing of the 1990s. Reparation has become a central tenant of transitional
justice and conflict resolution. The normative developments in the field of reparations
culminated in the recent UN General Assembly’s adoption of the Basic Principles and
Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of
International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian
Law, which codified a comprehensive set of principles on the right of individuals
and communities to reparations. The UN Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a
Remedy and Reparation sets out the forms of reparation mentioned above: restitution,
compensation, rehabilitation, and satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. 9 For
illustrative purposes it is interesting to note that the UN document describes restitution
as including “restoration of liberty, legal rights, social status, family life and citizenship,
return to one’s place of residence, and restoration of employment and return of
property.” 10
Indeed, against these standards, it is assumed that a durable peace between Israelis and
Palestinians should be predicated on individual justice. In addition to being granted
the choice whether to repatriate home, individuals should receive reparations for
their damages in order to satisfy all of their rights, resolve the wounds of protracted
dispossession and denial, and move toward equalizing the relationship between Israelis
and Palestinians. With respect to property losses inside Israel, this would mean that
individual Palestinian landowners and their heirs should be able to directly claim
restitution and/or compensation for their properties.
Israel, however, has historically resisted the principle of individualized reparations,
including individual compensation, out of concern that it would amount to an admission
of wrongdoing. Israel also prefers to do away with Palestinian refugee claims quickly
with as little material consequence as possible. In the first international peace process
on the Arab-Israeli conflict in 1949, Israel offered to repatriate a limited number
of Palestinian refugees and rejected out-of-hand property restitution. 11 It opposed
compensation payments directly to individual Palestinians, and offered only to pay
for select Palestinian land to a common fund. 12 The Israeli delegation took a similar
position at the Camp David II summit hosted by US President Clinton in 2000, whereby
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 59 ]

it sought to shield itself from liability for the full scope of individual Palestinian claims
originating in 1948. 13 Nevertheless, Palestinian negotiation proposals have consistently
sought individual reparations in the form of property restitution and compensation in
accordance with international law. 14
Implications for a Future Process of Property Reclamation
The legal and moral imperative of providing individuals with redress for the wrongs
they have suffered has significant impact on the remedial claims process for resolving
conflicts. Meeting the requirement of individual justice and the right to reparation
depends on establishing a process whereby victims can have their claims adjudicated
and satisfied individually. The goal of individual adjudication of claims, however,
must be measured against the need for efficiency and effectiveness, particularly where
the scope of potential claims is as great as it is in the Palestinian case. Hundreds of
thousands of Palestinians were displaced in 1948 and subsequent years. The number of
displaced Palestinians, including refugees and the internally displaced in Israel, stands
at 7.4 million. 15 The scope of Palestinian land lost in 1948 is over 17 million dunums. 16
Palestinians incurred additional property losses in 1948, including land tenancy rights
or livelihoods, movable property, businesses, and financial assets. The exact number
of property and nonmaterial damages claims that would be posted in a post-conflict
implementation process in Israel-Palestine is not precisely known but it is safe to assume
that the number of claims would be in the millions, worth hundreds of billions of dollars.
Balancing the interest in satisfying Palestinian rights and their need for justice with
efficiency and completion means that Palestinian property and nonmaterial damages
claims will be handled by a mass claims program. In contemporary terms, a mass claims
program is one that utilizes information technology and streamlined procedures and
standards to quickly process a huge number of claims stemming from the same historical
event. Claims are still posted and satisfied individually, but may be processed according
to simplified class categories or against reduced evidentiary standards, depending on the
procedurals rules created for the program.
Over the past two decades, tens of mass claims programs or claims commissions
have been established to resolve international disputes and national conflicts. These
claims commissions were primarily used to receive and process individual claims
for war-related violations, such as displacement, property dispossession and human
rights suffering, and to facilitate the transformation from conflict to the rule of law,
peace and stability. A few of the most successful claims commissions of relevance to
Israel-Palestine are the Commission for Real Property Claims for Displaced Person
and Refugees (CRPC) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the United Nations Compensation
Commission (UNCC) which compensated individuals, corporations and governments
[ 60 ] FEATURES Reparation for Lost Palestinian Property inside Israel

who suffered losses as a result of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, and the Kosovo Property
Claims Commission.
The institutional models, standards, and processing techniques used in these and other
cases will likely shape any future process for Palestinian refugee claims. The magnitude
and nature of Palestinian claims demands that the lessons learned from these precedents
be employed to achieve the best possible results. Moreover, they indicate that the
massive logistical undertaking of dealing with the millions of Palestinian claims that are
likely to be covered under any claims mechanism for refugees is doable. The UNCC,
for instance, received and settled 2.7 million claims in less than 10 years. The CRPC
processed claims for the confirmation of rights to 320,000 properties over a similar
period of time.
However, before one can draw the exact parameters of the future claims program for
Israel-Palestine, a comprehensive peace agreement is needed to establish the foundations
of the process.
The Relevance of Peace
Achieving the right to reparation for Palestinians who lost property inside
Israel requires a comprehensive peace agreement between the State of Israel and
Palestinian representatives. Although the clarity of the right for Palestinians is virtually
uncontestable under international law, its implementation depends on Israeli willingness
to recognize it and accept liability for its actions in arbitrarily expropriating Palestinian
property following their displacement. No viable alternative to Israeli agreement
presently exists, although it may be possible to use international and regional forums
to establish the applicable principles for resolving the conflict. 17 One has only to look
at the outcome of the recent Advisory Opinion issued by the International Court of
Justice (ICJ) on the legality of the Wall to understand that achieving the implementation
of Palestinian human rights requires Israeli acquiescence. The ICJ opinion was
essential for clarifying the rights and duties at issue, but it has had little impact on
the ongoing construction of the Wall in Palestinian Occupied Territory. Likewise, the
actual enforcement of a reparations regime depends on the effective participation of
the wrong-doing state – whether in the form of committing financial contributions or
through legislative reform for the return of property to the original owner or other action.
(Such participation is likely to come about once Israel accepts its responsibilities and
acknowledges Palestinian rights.)
Besides fulfilling an enforcement role, the future peace agreement will also act as the
constituting instrument for any future Israel-Palestine claims commission. The CRPC
was established by international agreement in Annex 7 of the Dayton Peace Accords.
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 61 ]

Annex 7 included details concerning the composition, mandate, basic staffing, funding
and operating parameters for the CRPC. The UNCC was established by a decision of
the UN Security Council. The relevant UN resolutions calling for the establishment of
the UNCC and its operating principles serve as the constituting documents, which the
UNCC utilized for implementation purposes.
In order to ensure effective, comprehensive implementation, the agreement should
address the following key elements of a claims process: the rights of the displaced and
others who suffered as a result of the conflict, the form of reparation that will be made
available to them, the types of claims or property losses to be covered, the modalities
for implementing the remedies, as well as the more functional issues regarding the
institutional structure of the implementation mechanism and its governing laws and
procedures. Perhaps most importantly, the agreement should determine the funding of
the process. Whatever elements are left unresolved in the final agreement will have to be
deferred to the claims program of the implementation mechanism.
Of particular urgency for peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians are the
substantive elements concerning the rights of Palestinian victims, the remedies to be
made available to them and the parameters for their implementation. The answer to these
issues will have a large impact on the design of the claims program and its operation.
For instance, a program involving the restitution of property will differ from a program
involving only compensation. 18 In general, there are no standard claims processing
models that can be applied wholesale to conflict situations. Any program will have to
be geared toward the particularities of the situation it seeks to resolve. The substantive
questions regarding the applicable forms of reparation and their implementation are,
however, the most fundamental for drawing the outlines of a future claims program for
Palestinians.
Although the substantive elements of such a program remain in dispute between Israel
and Palestinians, there appears to be little disagreement remaining over the appropriate
type of mechanism for their implementation. In past permanent status negotiations,
Israel and the PLO have agreed to establish a dedicated international mechanism to
implement all aspects of the agreement related to refugees, including return/resettlement
and rehabilitation and remedial claims for restitution and compensation. This approach
is in line with the emerging norms on the right to reparation and best practices in the
area of mass claims programming. The mechanism will be established to implement the
refugee-related provisions, but it will logically cover all claims stemming from 1948
whether held by Palestinians with formal refugee status or not. Individual claims arising
from the 1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip may also be processed
through the mechanism.
Irrespective of the final political framework for settling the historical conflict, it is
expected that an international mechanism will be needed to sustain what will likely be
[ 62 ] FEATURES Reparation for Lost Palestinian Property inside Israel

the largest mass claims program in world history. A national mechanism would lack the
resources and technical expertise to meet the full scope of the claims. Moreover, as was
the case with the return and restitution process for Bosnia, international intervention
may be needed to affect the appropriate domestic reforms needed to fulfil the terms of
the peace agreement and allow for the full function of the commission, especially if the
restitution of property is involved.
The composition, location and structure of the implementation mechanism,
among other matters, will have to be resolved in the course of negotiations between
Israel and Palestinians once there is a commitment to address the core elements of the
conflict, including the right of return. The seemingly-technical nature of these questions
(such as who will sit on the international claims commission) has significant political
ramifications, and therefore, it is reasonable to expect the beneficiaries of the agreement
to have a say in what is decided. And, without a doubt, they should have a say in what
forms of reparation would satisfy their need for justice and closure.
In his final report, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Reparations Theo Van
Boven noted that gross violations of human rights are by their very nature irreparable
and redress will fail to be proportional to the grave injury experienced, especially
where the violations have been committed on a massive scale. 19 But the purpose behind
reparations – to hold states accountable for their wrongful acts – is a necessary precursor
to restoring the rule of law, peace and stability. The recognition of a person’s experience
of dispossession is also met through the provision of individual reparations. A process
of reparation and property reclamation will be an important component of establishing
peace between Israelis and Palestinians even if the actual measure of justice meted out in
the end falls short of the full experience of 60 years of displacement and dispossession.
It is clear that there is substantial international practice to draw on to make the provision
of remedies to Palestinians for the losses they suffered in 1948 a reality. This short
comment has attempted to offer some indication of how that may happen. Yet, it is
necessary to clarify some of the most contentious issues of peace before a final process
can be laid out and before individual property owners may be able to post their claims
for justice. In the meantime, Palestinians entitled to restitution and compensation for
lost properties should preserve any documentary evidence of their property ownership
or use and continue to seek accountability from Israel in line with universal norms and
standards.
Leila Hilal was a visiting fellow at the Refugee Studies Centre at the University of Oxford during
the drafting of this essay. This work was carried out with the aid of a grant through the Middle
East Expert and Advisory Services Fund, which is a programme supported by the Canadian
International Development Agency (IDRC), in cooperation with the Department of Foreign Affairs
and International Trade Canada. She is a former legal advisor on refugees at the Negotiation
Support Unit in Ramallah.
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 63 ]

Endnotes
1
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194
(III), paragraph 11 (hereinafter “UNGAR 194”).
2
In international legal circles there is a debate as
to whether restitution requires a return to the situation
that existed before the wrong occurred - status
quo ante, or to establish what might have existed
in all likelihood had the injury not occurred. The
former would entail the return of lost property to
the original owner, whereas the latter would involve
also compensating him for damages incurred during
displacement such as lost rents or profits.
3
See Pinheiro Principles: UN Principles on
Housing and Property Restitution for Refugees
and Displaced Persons, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005. This
approach was pursued in Bosnia and Herzegovina
and recommended in the Annan Plan for Cyprus.
4
Factory at Chorzow (Ger. V. Pol.) Indemnity,
PCIJ (Ser. A) No. 17 (Sept. 13) at 47. (The remedy
available for the illegal expropriation of property is
restitution. If physical restoration of the property is
impossible, compensation is due in the amount of the
value of the property at the time of the taking plus
interest – an amount corresponding to the standard
of restitution.)
5
UNGAR 194 sets out the same framework with
property restitution being the primary remedy and
compensation as the alternative in the event that the
owner decides not to repossess it. Compensation
should also be paid for any damages to the property,
for instance if the house was destroyed but the land
is returned supra note 1.
6
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 8.
The right to an effective remedy is also provided in
the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights and the International Covenant and the
International Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Race Discrimination, both of which are
binding on Israel.
7
The issues of guilt and responsibility, and if and
how they could be resolved through the provisions of
reparation, were controversial from both the Jewish
and German perspectives.
8
Reparations for lost opportunities were
characterized as damages to career or economic
advancement. See “German Reparations to the Jews
after World War II: A Turning Point in the History of
Reparations”, in Handbook on Reparations, Pablo de
Grieff, 390 - 405.
9
A/RES/60/147 (21 March 2006), para. 21.
10
Ibid., para. 22.
11
Michael R. Fischbach, Records of Dispossession:
Palestinian Refugee Property and the Arab-Israeli
Conflict (New York: Columbia University Press,
2003), 92.
12
Ibid.
13
Fishbach, pp. 352-53.
14
See Palestinian written proposal made at the
permanent status negotiations at Taba, Egypt in
January 2001 at http://www.mideastweb.org/taba.
htm.
15
BADIL Survey, 2006-2007.
16
Fischbach, supra note 11.
17
For a discussion on the use of courts and
international institutions for bringing Palestinian
claims for restitution and compensation outside
of political negotiations, see Susan Akram, “Fora
Available for Palestinian Refugee Restitution,
Compensation and Related Claims”, BADIL
Information & Discussion Brief Issue No. 2, February
2000.
18
As noted above, there is a wide array of reparations
that are available to displaced Palestinians who lost
property. By law, restitution is the primary remedy
for the illegal expropriation of property, however, the
possibility of restitution in Israel is complicated by
numerous factors, not least of which is the protracted
displacement of the original property owners.
Palestinians displaced in 1948 may very well wish
to receive compensation rather than repossess their
properties, particularly if they are comfortably
resettled in another country. If the property has been
destroyed and converted to another purpose, restitution
may also be precluded by international law, although
it is clear from a visual survey of Palestinian property
in Israel that much of it remains open and vacant. In
any event, even if restitution is to be made available,
it is likely to be controlled by parameters designed to
meet the political objectives of the peace agreement.
19
Referenced in Dinah Shelton, “United Nations
Principles and Guidelines on Reparations: Context
and Contents” in Out of the Ashes: Reparation for
Victims of Gross and Systematic Human Rights
Violations, eds. K. de Feyter, S. Parmentier, M.
Bossuyt, and P. Lemmens (Antwerpen: Intersentia
& Institute for Human Rights, 2006) 15.
[ 64 ] FEATURES Reparation for Lost Palestinian Property inside Israel

Looking at Evil
Without Blinking
A review of Ilan Pappe,
The Ethnic Cleansing of
Palestine
Oneworld Publications, 2006
Raja Shehadeh
Baqa’a Refugee Camp in Jordan in 1947
when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians
were forced to leave their homes and
properties by Zionist fighters. Photo credit:
UNRWA
I had always known that the reason why
my aunt, Mary Kawar, stayed in Acre in
1948 was because her youngest daughter,
Amal, contracted typhoid and she could not
travel. It was only after reading Ilan Pappe’s
book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine,
that I learned how she must have contracted
the disease. Writing about the Hagana’s
campaign to conquer Acre, Pappe describes
how it proved “once again that it was not
only Napoleon who found it [Acre] hard to
defeat.” The Jewish forces then employed
chemical warfare to subdue the city:
“typhoid germs were apparently injected into
the water.” Reporting to their headquarters,
the local emissaries of the International Red
Cross “describe a sudden typhoid epidemic
and, even with their guarded language, point
to outside poisoning as the sole explanation
for this outbreak.” According to Pappe, their
reports to their headquarters left “very little
room for guessing whom they suspected: the
Hagana” (p.100).
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 65 ]

There are more revelations in Pappe’s book than this early use of chemical warfare.
I grew up hearing about the massacre in Deir Yassin but did not know that it was one
of scores of massacres that had been planned and perpetrated by the Zionist forces
throughout Mandate Palestine. The weight of historical evidence, as well as the
graphic and detailed descriptions of specific atrocities that Pappe delineates to prove
his case that the Zionists were guilty of the war crime of ethnic cleansing in Palestine,
in themselves make the book worth reading.
As intriguing, perhaps, was the confrontation with that history that I, and perhaps other
Palestinian readers, experienced in reading this valuable book. It made me realize
how much of this history I had been suppressing. How skeptical I had become, how
defensive against acknowledging many of these horrors. I had chosen to relieve myself
from the full admission of the war crimes that my family and people had endured.
It was not a book I could read in one go. That my parents did not tell me more is
not surprising. The psychology of losers is not to speak out, but rather to blame
themselves (not unlike what is now taking place in Palestinian society). In the case of
my father, it was also to pick himself up and get on with his life rather than dwell on
the losses. This is not unlike the children of Holocaust survivors who became silent
when faced with the atrocity. It is only those who make an industry of catastrophe who
dramatize and sensationalize.
The bulk of Pappe’s book, the first eight chapters, is about the ethnic cleansing
operations that occurred in 1948 in what became the state of Israel. Chapter nine
describes the immediate aftermath following the declaration of the establishment
of the state of Israel, the ghettoisation of those Palestinians who remained in
various cities such as Haifa and Jaffa, the desecration of holy sites, and abuse of
Palestinians, including instances of rape. The last three chapters take the book to the
present. Chapter 10 discusses what Pappe calls “memoricide.” This term, used in the
heading of the chapter, is not defined. But Pappe gives many examples of its various
manifestations and mechanisms. He writes that where remnants of Palestine villages
are still visible, it has been the mission of the Jewish National Fund (JNF) to conceal
them “not only by the trees it has planted over them, but also by the narratives it has
created to deny their existence.” (p 228) He then concludes:
deeply rooted in the people’s psyche, this mechanism works through exactly
this replacement of Palestinian sites of trauma and memory by spaces of
leisure and entertainment for Israelis. In other words, what the JNF texts
represent as an ‘ecological concern’ is yet one more official Israeli effort
to deny the Nakbeh and conceal the enormity of the Palestinian tragedy.
(p 229)
[ 66 ] REVIEWS Looking at Evil Without Blinking

A fundamental question that continues to intrigue many Palestinians today is how
it was possible for the Jewish minority in Palestine in 1948 to defeat the majority
of Palestinians and drive them away from their land. Pappe writes of several tactics
that were used in this regard of which I (and I would suspect many Palestinians)
were totally ignorant. These same tactics continue to be in use today, mainly against
the Palestinians living in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967. They include the
following:
• Preparing intelligence files on a large number of Palestinian villages in Palestine.
Pappe tells us that by the late1930s “the ‘archive’ was almost complete. Precise
details were recorded about the topographic location of each village, its access
roads, quality of land, water springs, main sources of income, its sociopolitical
composition, religious affiliations, names of its mukhtars, its relationship with
other villages, the age of individual men (sixteen to fifty) and many more.“ (p. 19)
Similar files with the same information now exist about all the villages in the West
Bank and the Gaza Strip. Pappe adds that:
the final update of the village files took place in 1947. It focused on creating
lists of ‘wanted’ persons in each village. In 1948 Jewish troops used
these lists for the search-and-arrest operations they carried out as soon as
they had occupied a village. That is, the men in the village would be lined
up and those appearing on the lists would then be identified, often by the
same person who had informed on them in the first place but who would
now be wearing a cloth sack over his head with two holes cut out for his
eyes so as not to be recognized. The men who were picked out were often
shot on the spot. (p 21)
A similar practice was used in the 1982 Israeli invasion and occupation of South
Lebanon to determine who would be taken for imprisonment in the Ansar and
Khayyam prisons that Israel had established. It continues to be used in the West
Bank and Gaza to identify those who would become victims of Israel’s policy of
‘targeted killings’.
• The use of collaborators is linked to another tactic reminiscent of the creation of a
network of informers, also commonly used by the Israeli occupation. One of those
involved in this effort, Moshe Pasternak, recalled many years later that by 1943
“there was a growing sense that finally they had a proper network of informants in
place.”
• A third practice that proved of extreme significance in “the building of an efficient
military organization was training with the help of sympathetic British officers.”
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 67 ]

The most prominent of these was Orde Charles Wingate who, according to Pappe:
made the Zionist leaders realize more fully that the idea of Jewish statehood
had to be closely associated with militarism and an army, first of all to protect
the growing number of Jewish enclaves and colonies inside Palestine but
also… because acts of armed aggression were an effective deterrent against
the possible resistance of the local Palestinians.
Pappe concludes, “from there the road to contemplating the enforced transfer of the
entire indigenous population would prove to be very short indeed.” (p. 15) Wingate
succeeded “in attaching Hagana troops to the British forces during the Arab revolt
so that they could learn even better what a ‘punitive mission’ to an Arab village
ought to entail. For example, “in June 1938 Jewish troops got their first taste of
what it meant to occupy a Palestinian village: a Hagana unit and a British company
jointly attacked a village on the border between Israel and Lebanon, and held
it for a few hours.” In a press release almost 70 years later (26 June, 2007), the
Palestinian human rights organization al-Haq reported that:
throughout March 2007, the Israeli occupying forces carried out four
military training exercises in the village of Beit Lid in the Tulkarem area.
The military manoeuvres usually lasted from approximately 2:00 am to
7:00 am and involved 400-500 Israeli soldiers entering the village on foot
in groups of about 15-20. The exercises included training with humanshaped
cardboard cut-outs, the simulations of evacuation and transfer of
injured persons. To date, the soldiers have not entered any houses in Beit
Lid, except an abandoned house in the middle of the village, or attacked
any of the villagers.
Judging from the prevalence today of the same tactics Jewish forces used to perpetrate
the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the territory where Israel was established,
it would appear that the next phase of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the
occupied territories is imminent, should propitious conditions arise.
But these similarities are not only military, but also diplomatic. One example
involves the legal status of the territories Israel occupied. After the occupation of the
West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip in 1967, Israel refused to
accept that it was bound by the Fourth Geneva Convention. Instead it declared that
it would abide only by the humanitarian provisions of that legal instrument. This
brings to mind the distinction that has been made regarding Palestinian refugees,
where their refugee status is denied and Israel insists on treating them as a “humane
problem.” Pappe writes:
[ 68 ] REVIEWS Looking at Evil Without Blinking

UN observers did draw some conclusions in October, writing to the
Secretary General–who did not publish their report–that Israeli policy was
that of ‘uprooting Arabs from their native villages in Palestine by force
or threat.’ Arab member states attempted to bring the report on Palestine
to the attention of the Security Council, but to no avail. For almost thirty
years, the UN uncritically adopted the rhetorical obfuscations of Abba
Eban, Israel’s ambassador to the UN, who referred to the refugees as
constituting a ‘humane problem’ for which no one could be held accountable
or responsible. (p. 190)
Pappe also brings to life for the reader Palestinian villages that were destroyed in
1948, evoking their architecture, landscape and social life. Travelling on the road
from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv after reading Pappe’s book, I saw the whole country as
though it were wearing new attire. A foreign presence has come and shorn the hills and
coastal plains of century-old villages, terraced land and orchards, replacing them with
new dwellings differently planned, built and coloured. This presence then cultivated
the hills with pine trees that covered the ruins, turning them from what had been into
how the colonizer thought it should be. I found myself looking at the Israeli towns
nestled between pine forests with new eyes. Born after 1948, I have no memory of the
ancient villages that graced these hills before they were destroyed by Zionist forces
during and after 1948. For the first time, I was lamenting the loss of those beautiful
spots and seeing the new Israeli towns as I do the settlements in the West Bank:
artificial implants by a colonizing state.
One of the merits of the book is its powerful impact on readers, who see what is
familiar in a new and revealing light. Another important aspect of the book is that it
focuses not only on the destruction, but describes the ancient villages with a real sense
of loss. It is proof of the extent to which the author, an Israeli Jew, is liberated from
bias that he is capable of lamenting the loss of what is purely Palestinian.
Some would say that this book produces outrage and anger at the injustice perpetrated
earlier by the Jewish forces and more recently by Israel’s army, and that the book
could incite extremism, thus offering ammunition to those who call for the destruction
of the Jewish state.
But this is not the message of the book or the purpose of the author. Pappe’s book is a
desperate appeal for both sides, Israeli Jews and Palestinians, and for the international
community to come to terms with the past. He writes:
Neither Palestinians nor Jews will be saved, from one another or from
themselves, if the ideology that still drives the Israeli policy towards the
Palestinians is not correctly identified. The problem with Israel was never its
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 69 ]

Jewishness–Judaism has many faces and many of them provide a solid basis
for peace and cohabitation; it is its ethnic Zionist character. Zionism does
not have the same margin of pluralism that Judaism offers, especially not
for the Palestinians. They can never be part of the Zionist state and space,
and will continue to fight–and hopefully their struggle will be peaceful and
successful. If not, it will be desecrate and vengeful and, like a whirlwind,
will suck us all up in a huge perpetual sandstorm that will rage not only
through Arab Muslim worlds but also within Britain and the United States,
the powers which, each in their turn, feed the tempest that threatens to ruin
us all. (pp 260-1)
Under present conditions, it is not likely that Pappe’s appeal will be heeded. But by
informing us both of past atrocities and the systematic planning that underlay them, he
has made a significant contribution to peace. This is because Pappe has not shied away
from looking evil in the face or explaining it away as many Israeli intellectuals have
been doing over the years.
Raja Shehadeh is a writer and a lawyer living in Ramallah. His latest book is Palestinian
Walks: Notes on a Vanishing Landscape (Profile Books, forthcoming in the United States from
Scribners).
[ 70 ] REVIEWS Looking at Evil Without Blinking

Whitewashing:
‘Everybody’
Does It
Review of Raz Kletter,
Just Past? The Making
of Israeli Archaeology
London: Equinox, 2006,
362 pp., Index
Roger Heacock
There are two kinds of books. On the
one hand, there are those that enter the
marketplace where the commodity and its
message are sold and purchased (largely
unified, even globalized, in this neoliberal
era), and thus lend themselves to
popular or scholarly critique expressed
through consumer responses ranging from
indifference to interest, praise, controversy
and rejection. And there are books that
remain in the stockrooms or on library
shelves. (There is of course a third category,
those which, despite their rarity, eventually
find their way onto the bestseller list – one
thinks here of Swann’s Way, which appeared
in a very limited first run that Proust had to
finance himself.)
The volume by Raz Kletter, Just Past? The
Making of Israeli Archaeology is a fifty
pound sterling whitewash. I mention the
price first because it guarantees that it shall
remain limited in circulation – with no
redeeming technical embellishments such as
high-quality photos – to university libraries
and the like. Perhaps it is best that way, for
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 71 ]

a truly commercial run of the volume would surely elicit a response one level higher
(or lower) than this forcibly limited edition. There would be a political uproar among
those Palestinian refugees living in the region or around the world, who have always
known of the fate of their own villages, houses and mosques. And there would be
an uproar within the scholarly community, because the ideological presuppositions,
the methodological inadequacies and the political intent of the volume deconstruct
themselves almost too readily, and thus command refutation.
And indeed, the author is conscious of this conundrum. He talks about the first
generation of Israeli archaeologists working in the decade following the creation of
the state. An employee of the Israel Antiquities Authority, he owes his superiors and
the censor, who gave him clearance to publish a book that is nonetheless based, we are
told, on materials readily available to the public. And the subject matter he is treating
stops half a century ago, so as further to minimize risk-taking, since the details he
uncovers relate to facts that are known and were readily bandied around by those who
perpetrated them like Moshe Dayan (“there is not a single [Jewish] settlement that was
not established in the place of a former Arab village”). The book is intended to assert
the primacy of pristine British archaeological ethics and the adherence of the Israeli
profession to them, by and large. The value system that looks up to and identifies
with the model of the former colonial master for guidance is characteristic of a certain
post-independence national intelligentsia, particularly in the Israeli case where the
colonized people are still there, underfoot. One wonders if he has considered British
archaeology’s behaviour and values (viz. Lord Elgin and the Erechtheion’s stolen
caryatid, or Howard Carter, who cut poor King Tut Ankh Amon into eighteen pieces
after 3,000 years in order to get all the jewellery). But the details don’t seem to
interest him; he is entranced with the symbol of the elevated, emphatically European
and most emphatically not Middle Eastern value system of the Israeli antiquities and
archaeological elite.
Nonetheless, and beneath the somewhat tedious and lengthy quotations, there appear
some interesting data, making this a primary source of sorts. There are documents
relating to the Palestine Archaeological (“Rockefeller”) Museum (whose status is to
be determined along with the rest of final status issues, which is a bit disconcerting
considering the fact that the identical Palestinian team that brought us Oslo is back
at work), and one infers something about the contradictions between the preservation
of antiquities (which under British-based Israeli law include buildings erected
before 1700) and urban restoration or development, which should have but did not
seek to preserve viable habitat. But the overriding intention is to clear the Israeli
archaeological profession of charges that they participated wholeheartedly, or even
in any significant way, in the frenzy of destruction of Palestinian private, public and
holy structures that began around 1948. Carefully, the author limits the period under
review to the 1950s (a couple of years before, a couple after), and prudently stops well
[ 72 ] REVIEWS Whitewashing: ‘Everybody’ Does It

short of the 1967 occupation of remaining rump-Palestine and other Arab lands, most
notably the Syrian Golan Heights.
But Kletter goes further than that: while indicting certain military men for their
excesses, he by and large exonerates Israel for acts which, he claims, were inevitable
given the state of war and the material needs of the immigrants. Although he severely
criticizes the politicization of works on archaeology, he does not hesitate to render
judgment on the question of human, and therefore archaeological, intent. If we are
to believe him, the massive destruction of Palestinian homes, monuments and places
of worship was a nearly accidental byproduct of violence after 1947. There was no
intention of carrying out ethnic cleansing, just a few late isolated cases of it (p. 42).
And if subsequently, the authorities proceeded to raze villages in their entirety, it was
first because of “embarrassment” and later to hide the unsightly blight that might
disturb tourists, notably along the road from the coast to Jerusalem. The old Arab
city of Tiberias was razed, along with its mosques and synagogue. On the other hand,
the Arab village of Bar’am, whose inhabitants never left the country, was entirely
destroyed in order to “accentuate” the synagogue (p.61).
He cites various authors regarding volition or intent, selectively, and finds there was
none. One of them is the ur-Benny Morris. But not the Benny Morris of 2004 (The
Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited) who had meantime become
unequivocal in judging that there had been an expulsion policy and, in his infamous
Ha’aretz interview in January of the same year, stated that Ben Gurion, who led that
policy, had finally gotten cold feet and not finished the job and gotten rid of all Arabs
from “the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River…”, as he should have.
Why is this important? First of all, because it addresses the question of credibility
regarding the work as a whole, and most particularly, the choice of archival
documents. Historians (and this designation is not a corporate one; history today
works through a multiplicity of media and sources: written, oral, pictorial, fictional,
and so on) always choose carefully among available documents – so much so that
there is some credibility to the slogan: “archives lie.” They lie at the source and
they lie upon their publication. At the source because they are drafted and crafted
by a certain class of people (consuls, ministers, civil servants and other members of
the elite) and not the countless marginalized persons whose situation they purport
to describe. 1 And they lie by virtue of the criteria of selection employed by those
intellectuals who choose, present and interpret them for the public. This is why a close
critical reading of documents, as well as the concept of intersecting networks (“who
said what, when and to whom?”), has become vital as a criterion for verification in
the social sciences. And when verifiable secondary sources are selected or distorted,
it is a reasonable induction that the material as a whole will be as well. Circumstantial
evidence is found in the author’s having presented the work to the censor for approval.
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 73 ]

Kletter does one thing that is virtually incomprehensible, even in the light of his
clearly revealed partialities. He ‘outs’ a Palestinian victim of the Nakba, a former
employee of the Mandatory Department of Antiquities, one who would be deemed a
collaborator in later periods, showing him as he pleads unsuccessfully for three years
from exile in Libya to be allowed to return, expressing joy at the name ‘Palestine’
having been replaced by Israel, denouncing (by name) those who had resisted the
Zionists, and who might possibly still have been in the country. The choice of
documents here is baffling; the effect, chilling.
The other remarkable aspect of this work is that it behaves as though Edward Said
had never been, and Orientalist versions of history were not reserved to fanatics in the
Bernard Lewis mould. We learn that Ottoman Palestine and by extension, the Ottoman
Empire, was a place replete with “dark spots: ethnic groups were segregated; the bulk
of archaeological research was carried out by foreigners; the Law of Antiquities was
accomplished at the price of creating legal trade in antiquities... and each separate
group was interested in ‘our past’…” (p. 295). The most casual amateur can spot
the enormities in this paragraph (with the likes of which the book is peppered),
from the choice of vocabulary (“dark spots”) to the counter-verities regarding ethnic
segregation, the hegemony of foreigners, the money-grubbing Turks, the ubiquity of
Zionist-type solipsism.
A number of subjects are broached that might, if given some depth, have added
to one’s understanding of specific issues. We find out how today’s Israel Museum
in Jerusalem was originally financed (by US funds). But the story of the funds’
disbursement is treated as a local scandal instead of being used, as it might, to
bolster the literature on the history and teleology of museums in general (“follow
the money!”). For this reason, it would not be correct to say that this book has no
place – it does, in those libraries that can afford it. And it can there be regarded and
employed as a primary source, since it quotes a large if select number of documents
of various types, pertinent to the study of the history of the land, its native inhabitants,
and those who moved in to take their place. Because of the period it chooses to cover,
it avoids the pitfalls of having to qualify Israeli archaeology as a tool of the regionally
expanding state in the way Meron Benvenisti, 2 Denys Pringle 3 and most of all, Nadia
Abu El-Haj have done. Kletter’s treatment of his much-respected archaeological caste
becomes more problematic as the years go by, since it is hard to blame others for
the depredation, as he does for this early period (he accuses the Israeli military and,
believe it or not, the Palestinian victims of the Nakba). How would he qualify their
unequivocal involvement in settlement activities in these new territories, minus the
fig-leaf of a recent European extermination campaign and hostile Arab armies and
populations?
[ 74 ] FEATURES Reparation for Lost Palestinian Property inside Israel

Kletter’s big problem, hidden amongst the many citations of sources, is Nadia Abu
El-Haj, whose comprehensive study of a century of Zionist archaeology Facts on the
Ground (Chicago, 2001) has become a major source on this subject. Throughout the
book, he belittles and distorts her work in bolstering his own allegations, or ignores
it. But finally his animus breaks out and he lays into her, briefly but vehemently.
While trying not to assault her in the total, American way, as an ignorant anti-Semite,
he scolds her for her criticism of ‘Hebrew’ and Israeli archaeologists. Furthermore,
she says nothing that Israelis have not been saying for some time (but to each other
in Hebrew, according to the cited work), and of course, she did not do what Kletter
shines at, blame the victims (“Those who lost the names also bear responsibility” –
p.218).
The whitewash, in the face of all the damage that we are told was done (but the
plethora of direct oral history accounts of inhabitants and their transmission by
historians such as Elias Sanbar and Walid Khalidi, or novelists such as Elias Khoury
had long since told the story in its chilling plenitude) is based on the fact that
‘everybody’ does the same thing, thus creating a blank slate on which subsequently
to etch the new nation’s imprint. One example Kletter gives is that of Turkey and its
wholesale destruction of the multicultural Anatolian past. And of course, he has a
point: Turkey perpetrated genocide, at the very least on its Armenian population; Israel
limited itself to ethnocide.
Roger Heacock is a historian who teaches at Birzeit University.
Endnotes
1
As shown for example by Ranajit Guha, “The
Prose of Counter-Insurgency,” Subaltern Studies 2
(1983) 1-43.
2
Meron Benvenisti, Sacred Landscape: The
Buried History of the Holy Land Since 1848
(Berkeley, 2000).
3
A research professor in archaeology, Pringle has
completed three of the four volumes containing the
complete corpus of crusader religious and secular
buildings in Palestine; he told me that he had to work
as quickly as possible, because too many of these
unprotected sites were continually being razed and
transformed into parking lots.
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 75 ]

‘Time Out’ in
Jerusalem
Penny Johnson
The April 2007 issue of Time Out
Jerusalem featured the Old City
marketplace.
“These narratives worked to secure the
ideology of discovery and to realign the
threatening political geography of the
Arab Middle East as a cartography of
leisure.”
–Rebecca Stein on Israeli
tourist guides written after the
Oslo peace agreements 1
Rarely have writers on Jerusalem, of
whatever political cast or character, viewed
the city of stone as a city of fun, partying,
upscale consumption or youthful glamour.
Growing up in the 1940s in very different
settings, both Edward Said and Amos Oz
bemoaned their Jerusalems’ melancholy
provincialism. Since then–several wars,
one occupation, an illegal annexation,
two intifadas and a Wall later–Jerusalem’s
reputation continues to get drearier, as the
oxygen of commerce and conviviality in
Arab Jerusalem is increasingly turned off,
while Jewish Jerusalem is marked as ever
more provincial, Orthodox and angry.
[ 76 ] REVIEWS ‘Time Out’ in Jerusalem

However, party-goers, clubbers and boutique shoppers were in luck in 2007:
Time Out Jerusalem, a monthly guide, came to present us with a new and better
Jerusalem, one where restaurant ratings triumph over building demolitions, and “hip
cafes, happening bars and designer boutiques” form a “Trendy Jerusalem” (March
2007) that has no trace of Jerusalem’s recent history, where such cafes were truly
sites of danger. Jerusalem is no longer contested, bitter, or even bounded by the Wall
– Jerusalem, it turns out, is a party city and destination of choice for youthful and
affluent tourists.
Time Out Jerusalem (and Time Out Tel Aviv) are monthly publications of an Israeli
company, the Yuval Sigler Media Group, under “exclusive license” from the UKbased
Time Out International – although, perhaps because of low demand or a
sense of discretion, these editions are not listed on Time Out’s main website 2 ,
which does include Time Out Dubai and Time Out Abu Dhabi. All issues of Time
Out Jerusalem to date contain the same potted history of Jerusalem (“In Context”),
noting, indisputably, that the 5,000 year history is “fraught with turmoil, conflict and
bloodshed.” A laundry list of conquerors follows, with Israel’s capture of the city in
1967 noted simply: “to this day the city remains under Israeli government.” Indeed,
except for a brief mention of the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles in
1993, the 1967 war seems to have brought Jerusalem’s history to an end, leaving the
way open for more familiar ground, i.e. where to find the best bars and restaurants,
boutiques, clubs and a scattering of cultural events. A comparison with an equally
brief, but more honest, history of Jerusalem in the UK-based Rough Guide series is
telling. Noting Israel’s “unilateral” annexation of Jerusalem, the Guide points out
that “most of the international community does not recognize Israel’s jurisdiction
over East Jerusalem” and adds that Israel has “ringed East Jerusalem with three
bands of settlements to forestall the Palestinian claim to the east.” 3
The magazine’s brief foray into history is more unrevealing than directly
objectionable; it’s shaping of the new Jerusalem comes more through the heart of
the matter – what to buy, where to go, what to see, what is happening. It is in these
“cartographies of leisure,” to use Stein’s apt term, that we discover how “Things
are happening in Jerusalem, a multi-cultural melting pot”. Lest the reader imagine
that the guide is about to introduce Jerusalem’s diverse populations, identities
and cultures, “The Melting Pot” section in December 2006 included “European
decadence,” (a waffle shop), a spice and nut haven in Maoz Zion (“colloquially
know as the Castel”) and a suggested trip to “fab wineries” in the Judean Hills (“you
don’t have to go all the way to Tuscany”). A click on the suggested map route shows
a stop at that Tuscan-like Israeli settlement, Gush Etzion.
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 77 ]

Counting Game: Israel In, Palestine Out
The counting game – the number of Israeli versus Palestinian items mentioned
in the guide – is perhaps a dull and nit-picking business but it is a compulsive
undertaking in this world composed of lists, must-sees, picks of the month, and other
accoutrements to help the hip and credit-card heavy. Only one Palestinian cultural
institution (institution) is listed (Hakawati), no Palestinian art galleries or exhibits, no
exhibits in Palestinian-run museums, no Arab restaurants (except for a small one-time
feature: inevitably on an Old City humus joint), no hotels in East Jerusalem except
the American Colony, and no musical events in Arab Jerusalem. One wonders how
Time Out could have missed the Mozart Festival in March 2007 – after all, the London
Choir singing the Mozart Requiem (in Hakawati) is not a hideaway event – or failed
to note the al-Hoash Gallery – a subject of features in The Independent and The Los
Angeles Times – or the well-advertised Jerusalem Music festival in July, among others.
“All souq up” trumpets the cover of the April 2007 issue, inviting readers to “play
the market inside the Old City Walls”. At last the Old City is acknowledged in the all
important “Consume” section of the magazine. Here Time Out enters (through Jaffa
Gate, of course) to explore – and here we pause – “the infamous Arab souq.” Alas,
the article is subtitled “braving the shakedown at the Arab Souq” and abounds with
cautionary tips, including not going alone (particularly for women) and not being
intimidated by the “aggressive sales technique” of Old City merchants. Well, perhaps
all publicity is good, but Time Out’s version of the Old City as a site of bargains for a
“savvy shopper with a “bit of chutzpah” is singularly unappealing.
We must recognize yet another breakthrough in the June 2007 issue where two
Old City establishments – Photo Elias and Humus Lina – are included in a “few of
Jerusalem must-sees.” Indeed, it all boils down to humus: “The Israeli-Palestinian
conflict is the only issue that evokes more emotional arguments than the debate over
the best humus joint” – and Time Out valiantly enters the latter debate with a vote for
Humus Lina.
In its first five issues, the Wall Israel is building through Jerusalem is the great
unmentionable – as indeed must surprise the hip tourist as he or she takes the advice
of Time Out and explores wineries in the Judean Hills, enjoys the view from the
Cinematheque or simply gets into the wrong taxi after a pleasant evening at the
American Colony. But in a way, the Wall and the regime of checkpoints, new ‘border’
terminals, and forbidden roads that undergird it, is the underlying logic of Time Out’s
Jerusalem. With these in place, Israel’s “trendy Jerusalem” can, it assumes, party on.
[ 78 ] REVIEWS ‘Time Out’ in Jerusalem

Postcript: The Wall in the Great Outdoors
Urging its readers to leave the urban hubs of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv and “get
acquainted with Israel’s quieter and more obscure side,” Time Out’s October 2007
issue offers “ten glorious and little-known havens in the Israeli countryside.” After
reviewing havens for a range of tastes – from “the pedaling tourist” to “the beach
bum” to “the flower child” – the ninth recommendation is for “the activist”. Perhaps
acute readers can guess where Time Out is heading – yes, it’s “a tour of the separation
fence,” recommending a drive up Highway 6 as “the best road to see a significant
stretch of the fence.” This is indeed – on the Israeli side only – likely the most visually
pleasant part of the Wall, in that it has been painted and decorated to remove its more
unsightly features. While Time Out acknowledges that that the “aesthetic value of
the wall” is in doubt in its more towering manifestation at the northern entrance to
Jerusalem, the fixture remains a day’s outing for the adventurous tourist, rather than a
lifetime sentence for those who live behind it.
With this issue, Time Out Jerusalem seems to have exhausted itself. In 2008, the eager
shopper and excursionist must make do with Time Out Israel.
Penny Johnson is Associate Editor of the Jerusalem Quarterly.
Endnotes
1
Rebecca Stein, “First Contact and Other Israeli
Fictions: Tourism, Globalization and the Middle
East Peace Process,” in eds. Rebecca Stein and
Ted Swedenburg, Palestine, Israel and the Politics
of Popular Culture (Durham and London: Duke
University Press) 227.
2
www.timeout.com. The site asks for “Comments
on Guides” but to date a query sent by the author
on 19 July, 2007 expressing concern over Time Out
Jerusalem’s lack of coverage of Palestinian cultural
sites and events has not received a reply.
3
See Daniel Jacobs, Israel and the Palestinian
Territories (London: The Rough Guides, 1998) 305-
308.
Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 79 ]

‘I Come From
There and
Remember’
A Coming
Photography Exhibit
Commemorating
the Nakba
Gina Benevento,
with Issam Nassar
Photos courtesy of UNRWA.
It’s a cold and wet Jerusalem winter
afternoon and already my desk is awash
in requests for photographs. As chief of
public information for UNRWA, the UN
agency that has provided humanitarian and
development services to Palestine refugees
since 1950, my office is the port of call
for anyone tracking down photographs
of Palestine refugees. And while 15 May,
2008, the sixtieth anniversary of the Nakba,
is still months away, there seems no end to
the appetite for images of the 1948 refugee
exodus. This morning, requests from two
European newspapers; yesterday requests
from an American NGO and al-Jazeera.
Looking over the photographs that Amani
Shaltout, our dedicated archivist, sends out
in response, my eyes linger on the faces.
What happened to the old man being helped
aboard a departing boat? Where is the young
woman staring out at us from the back of a
Haganah truck? There is almost a uniformity
to these images. The faces inevitably express
fear, confusion, sadness. The bodies are
in flight – walking, running, being carried
– helped by trucks and boats. And there
are always tents – single tents, then rows,
opening up to reveal fields of tents as far as
the camera and eye can see.
But one photograph makes me stop. It is
a photograph of two young girls pushing
carts stuffed with bedding. I’ve seen the
frightened, sad faces before. But it is what
is behind the young girls that stops me: two
large stone buildings, built in a popular early
twentieth century European style. Palestinian
refugee iconography (refugee iconography
in general) focuses on that which is temporal
– tents, trucks, boats, mattresses slung over
shoulders – all symbols of dispersion. But
[ 80 ] REVIEWS ‘I Come From There and Remember’

Jerusalem Quarterly 33 [ 81 ]

these buildings are permanent – homes and shops – part of what was once a stable
and thriving Palestinian community. Only minutes earlier these young girls were not
refugees. Their home, their school, their playground – everything that was familiar and
dear to them – are all still a few short blocks away.
I go back and look again at the other photos. Who were these people before they
were turned overnight into refugees? I suddenly remember words from a poem by
Mahmoud Darwish:
I come from there and I remember
Born as mortals are, I have a mother
And a house with many windows…
The old man and woman staring at us so stoically from the entrance to their tent:
did their home have many windows? Had their life been a happy one? The 120,000
Palestinians who fled Haifa, the 123,000 who fled Jaffa – whom had they loved and
married? What had they taught their children? What was their life a year, a week, a
moment before? How many worlds were lost?
And so began the work on “I Come from There and Remember”, a photo exhibition
evoking the life of pre-1948 Palestine, UNRWA’s commemoration to mark the 60 th
anniversary of the Nakba. The exhibit premieres simultaneously in six locations –
Jerusalem, Ramallah, Gaza City, Amman, Beirut and Damascus – on 15 May, 2008.
Musical performances and lectures will be held around the exhibition’s theme of pre-
1948 Palestine, and after two weeks the six exhibits will begin tours to universities,
municipalities and refugee camps. The exhibition is also available for hosting and
touring, regionally or internationally.
Sponsors of “I Come From There and Remember” are the Swiss Development for
Cooperation (SDC), British Consulate General, Arab Fund for Arts & Culture, and the
Qattan Foundation. Gina Benevento (co-curator) has curated exhibitions on Palestinian
themes regionally and internationally and is the former chief of public information for
the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East
(UNRWA). Jerusalem Quarterly Associate Editor Issam Nassar is co-curator of the
exhibit.
[ 82 ] REVIEWS ‘I Come From There and Remember’

Jerusalem Diary
December 2007 – March 2008
In 1967, when Israel occupied previously
Jordanian-controlled eastern Jerusalem, it
took control of a city that was 26 percent
Palestinian and 74 percent Jewish. Forty
years later, the Palestinian population
in the city has risen to 34 percent, due
largely to a higher birth rate.
Israel has worked hard to maintain
demographic and geographic control
over the city it annexed as its capital. It
expanded the city’s boundaries and is
putting massive investment into Jewish
settlements in order to beat back inching
Palestinian growth. In 2005, Jerusalem
was home to 245,000 Arabs and 475,000
Jews, 184,000 of the latter living in
settlements considered illegal under
international law. (More recent numbers
put the settlement population at 210,000.)
Since Palestinians and Israelis kicked
off talks in Annapolis, Maryland
in November, Israel has escalated
settlement construction in Jerusalem,
according to a recent report by the Ir
Amim organization. Over 9,500 housing
units for Jews have been constructed,
471 of them in the heart of Palestinian
population centers. In addition, Israel has
announced tenders for 1,550 units in four
separate settlements within the redrawn
Jerusalem boundaries.
These moves contradict Israel’s
commitments to stop settlement
construction under the road map, the
basis for the US-sponsored Annapolis
talks. The road map plan for peace was
first endorsed in 2003 by the United
States, European Union, Russia and
United Nations.
Palestinian officials have protested the
new building to no avail. Palestinian
Authority efforts to counteract settlement
by designating the city an Arab cultural
capital have been broken up by Israeli
police, and its organizers detained. One
civil society organization canceled a
conference to be held in the city after it
was notified that no Palestinian events in
Jerusalem were being allowed to proceed.
Meanwhile, Palestinian neighborhoods in
Jerusalem suffer from systemic neglect.
Almost 90 percent of the city’s sewage
networks, roads and sidewalks are found
in the city’s western side for the use of
Jewish residents, says the human rights
group B’Tselem.
Since 1967, Israeli officials have planned
no new Arab neighborhoods in eastern
Jerusalem. Construction permits are
expensive and difficult to obtain and
unlicensed structures are threatened with
demolition. In March alone, city officials
demolished four unlicensed Palestinian
structures in Jerusalem and its Arab
suburbs.
Jerusalem Quarterly 31 [ 83 ]

Poverty in Jerusalem is growing at
staggering rates, increasing by 40 percent
over six years and touching 33 percent of
the city’s residents in 2005. Palestinians
in the city had a 70 percent poverty rate,
found an Israeli study – as did the city’s
growing ultra-orthodox community. The
increase in poverty is largely due to low
workforce participation by Palestinian
women and ultra-orthodox men.
Approximately one quarter of the city’s
residents are ultra-orthodox Jews. Secular
Jews often cite their numbers as reason
for moving out of Jerusalem. Jerusalem’s
mayor and most of its city council
members are ultra-orthodox. (Palestinians
typically boycott the city government.)
The yeshiva where a Palestinian gunman
from the Jerusalem neighborhood of
Jabal al-Mukabber killed eight ultraorthodox
men injuring 35 others on 6
March was a major training ground for
the West Bank settlement movement.
Jerusalem police were ‘caught off guard’
days after the shooting when Israeli
demonstrators, among them settler
representatives, entered a Palestinian
neighborhood and attacked homes and
businesses. On 14 May, Khayri al-Qam,
51, a father of nine, was stabbed in the
back about 5:30 A.M. on his way to
work in the Beit Yisrael neighborhood
in what was said as a revenge killing for
the yeshiva deaths. Police said this was
the sixth stabbing of Palestinians since
the lethal stabbing of an Orthodox Jew in
February.
“A cycle of bloodshed has been opened,’’
Jerusalem police chief, Yair Yitzhaki, told
the New York Times.
While many large Jewish settlements
ring the city, newer settlements near the
historic old city are set within Palestinian
neighborhoods. Settlers in Silwan are
actually digging under Arab homes,
expanding an archeological site, despite
an Israeli court order to stop.
Authorities are also considering a
massive new Jerusalem settlement for
ultra-orthodox Jews just meters from the
Palestinian town of Ramallah. Former
deputy mayor Meron Benvenisti called
the proposal “complete insanity” for its
potential to create friction.
In the absence of intensive efforts to
reach a political compromise over the
city and its related issues of settlements
and borders, Jerusalem is increasingly
tense. Worrying trends indicate a shift
to violence between city residents
along ethnic and religious lines, as
Israeli authorities push hard to gain a
demographic advantage also along ethnic
and religious lines.
[ 84 ] JERUSALEM DIARY [December 2007 – March 2008]

Editorial Committee
Salim Tamari, Editor
Charmaine Seitz, Managing Editor
Issam Nassar, Associate Editor
Penny Johnson, Associate Editor
Advisory Board
Ibrahim Dakkak, Jerusalem
Michael Dumper, University of Exeter, UK
Rema Hammami, Birzeit University, Birzeit
George Hintlian, Christian Heritage Institute, Jerusalem
Huda al-Imam, Center for Jerusalem Studies, Jerusalem
Nazmi al-Jubeh, Birzeit University, Birzeit
Hasan Khader, al-Karmel Magazine, Ramallah
Rashid Khalidi, Columbia University, USA
Martina Rieker, American University of Cairo, Egypt
Shadia Touqan, Welfare Association, Jerusalem
The Jerusalem Quarterly (JQ) is published by the Institute for Jerusalem Studies
(IJS), an affiliate of the Institute for Palestine Studies. Support for JQ comes from
contributions by the Heinrich Böll Foundation (Ramallah) and the Ford Foundation
(Cairo). The journal is dedicated to providing scholarly articles on Jerusalem’s history
and on the dynamics and trends currently shaping the city. The journal covers issues
such as zoning and land appropriation, the establishment and expansion of settlements,
regulations affecting the status of Arab residency in Jerusalem, demographic trends,
and formal and informal Palestinian negotiating strategies on the final status of
Jerusalem. We present articles that analyze the role of religion, culture, and the media
in the struggles to claim the city.
This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the Heinrich Böll
Foundation. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and can therefore in
no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of the Heinrich Böll Foundation.
www.JerusalemQuarterly.org
ISSN 1565-2254
Design: PALITRA Graphic Design.
Printed by Studio Alpha, Palestine.