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! :)