Was the Zionist claim to Palestine a valid one? Part 4

In the forth and last part of this article, I want to focus on the roots of modern Zionism as a secular movement with a political orientation towards Palestine and also on the factors that contributed to the success of the Zionist project. It is worth mentioning the fact that ordinary Jews of European countries who had at first no intention to emigrate to Israel did at the same time identify with the Zionist ideal. Outside Europe, Israel became a common identity for all American Jewish groups. Whether they were liberal or not, the Jews gave Israel a mythic quality, coming from both ethnical identity and religion[1]. No matter how true or wrong this position towards Israel was, it was strongly influenced by factors such as the failure of Jewish efforts to become assimilated in Western societies and the intensification of anti-Semitism in Europe.

For centuries, Jews had been regarded as foreign bodies wherever they have been living. However, their status was different from Western to Eastern Europe were the situation of the Jewish population was getting worse day by day. We should also bear in mind the impact of the Nazism in Germany and the Holocaust which is reminded even today as one more reason for the Jews to have the right to their national homeland.

Still, I strongly believe that the ones to pay for the Jewish struggles and sufferings shouldn’t have been the Palestinians. This is just a proof that, unfortunately, history hasn’t taught the Zionists anything, or if it did, they must have got everything wrong.

Still, everything relies on the way we learn to manage our actions, our fear or courage, our angriness or the wish for power and command. The Arab-Israeli conflict has definitely been a lesson, but still most of the ones involved fail to understand it. This is actually the reason why I chose this question as the topic for my article. It helped me go back to the seeds of the conflict and to prove how once again one made the games for everyone. 

To sum up, I reaffirm my belief that the Zionist claim to Palestine is not just invalid, but also totally unfair for the natives of the land. Not only that Palestine wasn’t an aim for the Zionist project from the start, but even when it became their goal it was already a home for other people whose existence was completely denied. Other arguments such as the historical background and demographic numbers support my belief.

A very old Arabic saying states: “I have three friends and three enemies. My friends are: my friend, the friend of my friend and the enemy of my enemy. My enemies are: my enemy, the friend of my enemy and the enemy of my friend.” I finish my article leaving on you to reflect on who are the friends and enemies of the Arabs.

---

[1] Karmi, Married to another man: Israel’s dilemma in Palestine, 58-60

Was the Zionist claim to Palestine a valid one? Part 3

The historical and theological background of the Zionist claim should also be discussed and argued. As history and religion might seem interrelated, I want to eliminate from the start the argument of the Promised Land. According to the Bible, the land of Canaan was given by God to Abraham and his seed – the Jews. This can be easily found in Torah, in the Bible and in the Qur’an. At the same time, Zion is one of the biblical names of Jerusalem. Since the destruction of the First Temple in 586 B.C. and the exile to Babylon, the Jews yearned to return to Zion[1]. This is the theological motivation of the Zionist claim to Palestine.

For a non-believer this whole argument would have no value. In fact, as it is a matter of religious belief it cannot even be taken into account as a proof. Moreover, bearing in mind that Palestine is the land of the holy places for all the three monotheistic religions, one might say that any of them would have equal rights to the land. Nevertheless, how can anyone prove that the Jews are actually the same with the ancient Israelities? It is hard to accept the idea that for such a long period of time a group of people has remained unchanged as they traveled from one place to another and they’ve been through processes like conversion and intermarriage.

Here we come to the historical background of the problem. No one can contest the argument that Jews originated in Palestine 2000 years ago. On the other hand, this can never give them the right to claim it for themselves after all this time in the detriment of its indigenous inhabitants. There are many cases in world’s history of people and tribes that were forced to move from their homeland to another place, but no one except from the Zionists promote such an abhorrent idea of reversing the history.

In fact, Jews were dispersed by the Romans in AD 70 and they were sent into exile. However, the mass dispersion was rather small and mainly internal. It is true that some of them ended up joining the diaspora, but most of the Jews remained in Palestine. From those, a part converted to Christianity and later on to Islam. The rest of them were the Jewish minority that could be found in Palestine before the whole Zionist project started: less than 10% of the population[2].

But Zionism was born in Europe and not in the Middle East, therefore what concerns us is the question of the European Jews and their origins. By the 19^th century more than a half of the whole Jewish population was in Lithuania and Poland. Big communities of Jews could also be found in Russia and in Western Europe, even though their status and condition was different from one country to another[3].

There are two main explanations for the origins of the European Jews: the Jewish traders of the Middle Ages who travelled to the Mediterranean and Western Europe and the Khazar conversions in the 18^th century (East European Jews)[4].

No matter which explanation we accept or whether we accept them both, it is hard to believe in the existence of an unbroken chain in between the Jews of Palestine and those of Europe. This was just one more absurd argument used by the Zionists to convince people and to justify the return to their “homeland”- Palestine.  In fact, keeping in mind the conversion to Judaism that had been taking place all over the world, it could not be said that there was such a biological, racial or national entity as the “Jewish People”[5].

On the other hand, Palestine became a predominantly Arab country by the end of the 7^th century. Even though it has been inhabited by Muslims, Jews and Christians, Palestine existed as a largely pastoral community that also had social, economical, political and cultural strengths, and whose people used a common language – Arabic. For a big majority the religion was Islam. They were the owners of the land and that was their home. Even as a province in the Ottoman Empire, Palestine was still proving a sense of nationalism, of course different from the European perception of nationalism. Therefore, whereas the Jews can’t really prove a national identity, the Palestinians were joined together not only by their land, but also by their common history and language. 

And the reality is even more striking when it comes to numbers that prove once again how the Zionist claim is more of a “struggle between a presence and an interpretation”[6]. In 1822, according to Israeli sources, in Palestine there were no more than 24,000 Jews which represented less than 10% of the whole Arab population. In 1931, the number of Jews was 174,606 out of 1,033,314, in 1936, they were 384,078 out of 1,366,692 and in 1946 their number was 608,225 out of 1,912,112[7]. The majority of natives is reflected in those numbers and it was easily distinguishable: they were mainly Sunni Muslims, but they were also minorities of Christians, Druzes, Shiite Muslims; they all spoke Arabic.

Having seen the numbers, the declaration of a right-wing writer in Haaretz would definitely make no sense: “Our right to Eretz Israel and our right to establish a sovereign national entity on it does not depend on our numbers, and on whether we are a majority or a minority.” How can one pretend that a land is his and deny the existence of such a great minority that had been there from the very start?! This is one more example of the way the whole Zionist project was based on an absurd denial.

---

[1] Shlaim, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World, 10

[2] Karmi, Married to another man: Israel’s dilemma in Palestine, 64-65

[3] Idem.

[4] Karmi, Married to another man: Israel’s dilemma in Palestine, 66-67

[5] Idem

[6] Edward W. Said, The Question of Palestine, 8.

[7] Idem

Was the Zionist claim to Palestine a valid one? Part 2

In the same way, the Balfour Declaration appeared in the events line and it actually became the juridical basis of the Zionist claim to Palestine. Issued on November 2, 1917, it took the form of a letter from Arthur James Balfour, the British foreign secretary to Lord Rothschild, an important British Zionist leader. The declaration stated:

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country". [1]

The reason why I quoted the whole content of the declaration isn’t only to emphasize its vagueness but also to point out the negation of any political rights for the inhabitants of the land, fact which is in total contradiction with the demographic of human realities in Palestine. It is once again a proof that the existence of the natives on the land was common knowledge for all the sides involved, but it was left aside.

In other words, the whole declaration was made by a European power, an outsider, about a non-European territory which was actually the object of another promise made by the same power. Above all, the declaration had not only negated any political rights to the natives, but it had also disregarded completely the opinions of the native majority, whether they were Arabs, Jews or other[2]. It is even more unjust the fact that they were like pawns on a global chessboard, even though the game was being played in their backyard.

Till now, I’ve discussed how Palestine wasn’t even an aim from the start and how it became an aim in time although it was already a home for other people. Further on, I would dare to say that even the Balfour Declaration wasn’t a valid juridical base as its object was already an object in another agreement. In this case, from the juridical point of view, both agreements would have been proven invalid. The McMahon-Hussein of October 1915 came after a long correspondence in between the two sides which showed not exactly honest interests, especially in the European side. 

---

[1] Charles D. Smith, Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A history with documents (Boston, New York: Bedford/St.Martin’s, 2010), 96-97.

[2] Edward W. Said, The Question of Palestine (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980), 16.

Revendicarea sionista a Palestinei – valida?

                      “Tine de moralitate sa nu te simti acasa in casa altcuiva.” 

                                                                                           Edward Said                              

In ciuda evenimentelor recente din lumea araba sau poate chiar avand o stransa, dar subtila legatura cu ele, conflictul dintre Palestina si Israel a fost si este un subiect tratat cu interes si intens dezbatut. Urmatoarele trei articole se intorc la radacinile acestei teme si reflecta parerile pesonale asupra subiectului sustinute desigur de argumente istorice.

Revendicarea Palestinei de catre Israel este la fel de putin valida precum a oricarei alte natii decat a celor ce au detinut teritoriul inca dinaintea lansarii programului sionist. Palestina reprezenta deja patrie sau “casa”  pentru o populatie relative numeroasa, in special araba, strans legata de acest teritoriu. Este absurd de nedrept sa te strecori in casa cuiva si sa ti-o insusesti ca si cum ar fi fost dintotdeauna a ta. Moral sau nu, acel loc nu va deveni niciodata pe deplin casa ta si fiecare colt de pamant se va razvrati precum un blestem primordial.

Dar inainte de toate, poate ca ar trebui sa ne punem intrebarea daca  Palestina a reprezentat un tel in sine pentru sionisti de la inceput?

In timp ce Zionismul initial – Hovevai Zion care se manifesta in anumite orase rusesti in jurul anului 1881 promova emigrarea in Palestina si activitati de stabilire acolo, tatal sionismul politic modern  Theodor Herzl, in cartea sa (o parodie de altfel) “Statul Evreu” nu a stabilit niciodata Palestina ca un scop final,  lasand astfel loc pentru variante precum Argentina si Kenia.

“Statul Evreu” a reprezentat baza pentru ceea ce avea sa devina proiectul sionist si solutia moderna la marea dilema evreiasca, oferind un adevarat plan pentru crearea patriei evreiesti. Cu toate acestea, cartea a lasat deschisa intrebarea legata de locul unde avea sa se puna in aplicare indraznetul proiect, daca acesta ar fi trebuit sa fie in Palestina datorita asocierilor istorice si religioase, sau in orice alt loc care ar fi putut fi obtinut usor, prin mijloace mai mult sau mai putin legale, dar cu siguranta diplomatice tinand cont de talentul diplomatic al lui Herzl. Insa, cu siguranta, Palestina nu a reprezentat de la inceput ea insasi scopul proiectului sionist.

Decizia ca Palestina ar trebui sa devina teritoriul comunitatii evreiesti a fost exprimata mai tarziu, la Primul Congres Sionist de la Basel in 1897. Acesta a fost si momentul in care s-a decis instituirea Organizatiei Mondiale Sioniste condusa de nimeni altul decat Theodore Herzl  si s-au definit obiectivele sioniste prin programul Basel: “Obiectivul sionismului este crearea unei case pentru poporul evreu in Eretz Israel protejat de lege.” In ciuda folosirii termenului “home” – ce nu inseamna neaparat patrie, ci casa, si nu “state” – stat, scopul sionistilor poate fi usor inteles: un stat pentru evrei in Palestina. De altfel, importanta Congresului, poate fi subliniata de catre un citat din jurnalul lui Herzl: “ La Basel am fondat Statul Evreu. Daca as fi spus-o tare astazi, mi s-ar fi raspuns cu un raset universal. Poate in cinci ani, si cu siguranta in cincizeci, toata lumea va stii aceasta.”  Cu siguranta, cu totii o stim astazi…

Asadar, decizia sionista de a fonda un stat evreu in Palestina a fost luata abia in 1897, chiar daca se stia ca teritoriul este deja locuit. Nu era nici pe departe conform sloganului sionist: “un taram fara popor, pentru un popor fara taram”. Realitatea era complet diferita si se reflecta mai bine in raspunsul celor doi rabini trimisi sa cerceteze teritoriul: “Mireasa este frumoasa, dar casatorita cu un alt barbat.” Palestina era un teritoriu ravnit, dar deja detinut de altcineva. Totusi nimic nu i-a oprit pe sionisti din a-si realize obiectivele. In concluzie, intregul proiect sionist s-a bazat inca de la inceput pe o continua negare a realitatii teritoriale. Invaliditatea sa, atat din punct de vedere legal, cat si moral, este lesne de inteles…

Was the Zionist claim to Palestine a valid one?

 “It is a part of morality not to be at home in one’s home.”

Edward W.Said

The Palestine-Israel conflict has always been a topic treated with great interest and strongly debated. The next three articles go back to the roots of this conflict and reflect my personal views supported by historical arguments.  

The Zionist claim to Palestine is as invalid as anyone’s claim to the place, other than the natives that had inhabited the land before the Zionist project was launched. It is common knowledge that Palestine was already a home for a large population, mainly Arab, strongly bonded with the land. It is absurdly unfair to sneak into one’s home and even more absurd to treat it as your own. Moral or not, that place will never truly become your home.

Firstly, was it Palestine itself an aim for the Zionist from the very start?

Whereas Zionism of Hovevai Zion that was manifesting in some Russian cities in 1881 promoted the immigration and the settlement activities in Palestine, the father of the modern political Zionism, Theodore Herzl, in his book “The Jewish State” never regarded Palestine as the definitive aim, taking also into consideration places such as Argentina or Kenya[1].

“The Jewish state” represented the basis of the future Zionist project and the modern solution to the Jewish question, giving a perfect blue print for a Jewish “home”. However, the book left open the question of the land, whether this should be Palestine because of its historic associations, or any other place that might have been obtained easily[2]. Therefore, Palestine wasn’t even a definite aim at the start of the Zionist project.

The strong belief that Palestine should be the land of the Jewish community was expressed later on, in 1897, at the 1^st World Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland. This was also the moment when the World Zionist Organization was created and the goal of Zionism was defined: “the creation of a home for the Jewish people in Palestine to be secured by public law.”[3] Although the word “home” was used instead of “state”, the aim was clear: a state for the Jewish people in Palestine. The importance of the Congress was emphasized by a quote from Herzl’s diary: “ At Basel I founded the Jewish State. If I said this out load today, I would be answered by universal laughter. Perhaps in five years, and certainly in fifty, everyone will know it.”[4] We definitely know it today...

So, the Zionist decision of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine was taken in 1897, even though they were aware of the fact that the land was already inhabited. There was no such thing as the Zionist slogan “a land without people, for a people without land”. The reality was completely different according to the two rabbis who were sent to see the land: “The bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man”[5]. However, nothing managed to stop the Zionists from fulfilling their goal. Therefore, we can easily realize from the start that all the Zionist project has been based on a continuous denial of the reality of the ground. So, the Zionist claim was invalid from the very start.

                                                                 To be continued...

---

[1] Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001), 2-3.

[2] Theodore Hertzl, Der Judenstaat (Leipzig and Vienna: M. Breitenstein's Verlags-Buchhandlung, 1896).

[3] Shlaim, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World, 3-4.

[4] Idem.

[5] Ghada Karmi, Married to another man: Israel’s dilemma in Palestine (London: Pluto Press, 2007).  

After one more university year finished in UK,  I am back on my blog ready to post all the work I've done througout this year...and even more... Enjoy! :)