The
Course Of History
By Dan Lieberman
24 July, 2007
Countercurrents.org
The Middle East crisis, originally
a struggle between native Palestinians and early Zionists for control
of a land, has grown into a battle between Israel and the Arab world.
A solution to the conflict has defied resolution – and for good
reason – the imposition of artificial factors after World War
I contradicted a course of history that predicted the Palestinians would
control their destiny and form a nation in lands they had owned and
occupied for centuries. This contradicted previous shaping of the Middle
East which always coursed into a return of lands to native inhabitants.
The Shaping of the Middle
East
Assyrian, Babylonian, Phoenician
and Persian empires shaped the early Middle East and started its history.
Foreign invaders – Greeks, Romans and Mongols - were eventually
displaced by native movements. Indigenous Arabs ruled for centuries
until being finally replaced by nomadic Turks who formed the Ottoman
Empire. Each of these civilizations impelled a thrust of history that
did not degenerate until the last decades of the Ottoman Empire. From
the final gasp of the Turkish Empire, the victorious allies carved out
a complement of nations at the end of World War I. Decades of painful
struggles subdued French and British spheres of influence and the lands
returned to the sovereignty of Arab peoples. After more than several
decades, the borders of these nations have been accepted, except for
those who want to divide Iraq, those who believe in a Greater Syria
and those who don’t accept the extended Israel.
Each new Middle East nation
found its peoples. Not all peoples found their nations. The Palestinians
were forced to share their land with settlers from western nations,
who arrived with a Zionist program – a national home for Jews
in the British Mandate of Palestine and supported by the Balfour Declaration.
Balfour Declaration, 2 November,
1917
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.
The League of Nations Mandate
for Palestine, 24 July, 1922
Whereas the Principal Allied
Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for
putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd,
1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the
said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national
home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing
should be done which might 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...
The inhabitants of Palestine
refused to accept a Balfour Declaration that lacked legal force. Nevertheless,
the League of Nations’ approval of the British mandate in Palestine
prevented the formation of a national Palestinian governing body. Overlooked,
is that history would have pursued a less confrontational course if
the early Zionists used the opportunity to solicit the North African
and Middle East Jews (Mizrahim), many who considered themselves Arabs,
to move to Palestine and establish a homeland together with the Palestinians.
Instead the Zionists promoted the immigration of European Jews, some
of whom came to work in the British administration together with Palestinians.
The inordinate number of Jewish immigrants from western nations provoked
a conflict. If Mizrahim had originally settled in the area, the conflict
might have remained a more manageable dispute between Middle-East populations.
The two pronouncements diverted
the natural course of history and unleashed hostilities that have grown
with each decade and have reached a perilous state.
The Course of History
The Zionist entrance into
Palestine changed the course of Middle East history and with dubious
benefit. Despite the propaganda and rhetoric, an analysis of the settlement
of Palestine and the creation of an Israel state does not validate a
successful result of the original Zionist mission or the creation of
a state that is Jewish and protects Jews. The principal result of the
original Zionist agenda is that people of uncertain circumstances and
favored by the Zionists have been transferred from their home countries
to a new land, while people of more certain circumstances and not favored
by the Zionists have been displaced from their homes. The less favored
have become refugees and, in many cases, been reduced to poverty.
Relatively few Jews who consider
themselves ardent Zionists have left their homes and immigrated to Israel,
which means that few Jews are active Zionists. The Jews who immigrated
to Israel after 1948 arrived for mainly economic and political reasons
and not to fulfill a Zionist agenda. Zionism has not persuaded Jews
to leave their western nations, not deterred them from greatly participating
in their nations’ economic and social gains and not prevented
them from integrating themselves into their nations’ cultures.
The Economist (Jan.11, 2007) mentions that only 17% of American Jews
today regard themselves as pro-Zionist and only 57% say that caring
about Israel is a very important part of being Jewish.
Israel is the most obvious
place in the world where Jews are less safe; attacks against Israel
are common. A November 2003 European Union poll selected Israel as the
greatest threat to world peace. Overall, 59 percent of Europeans placed
Israel in the top position, ahead of Iran and North Korea. Verbal and
physical attacks against Jews are increasing in many countries and the
principal reason for the attacks is the antagonism towards Israel being
deflected from Israel and to its Jewish supporters.
It is difficult to characterize
Israel as a Jewish nation. Avraham Burg, former Knesset speaker and
former head of the Jewish Agency has been quoted as saying, “to
define the State of Israel as a Jewish state is the key to its end.”
The term ‘Jewish nation’ has never been adequately defined
and there is nothing exceptional in Israel that identifies a specific
Jewish morality, culture or Judaic atmosphere. There are some, but relatively
few foods, architectural styles, songs, dances and landscapes in Israel
that are not related to the Arab Mediterranean Twenty percent of Israel’s
population are Arabs and a portion of the citizenry, such as the Ethiopian
Falasha and Russian immigrants, have dubious relation to world Jewry.
Many of the Mizrahim immigrants to Israel, who constitute a great part
of Israel’s population, can be considered Arab – having
previously spoken Arab, adopted Arab customs and culture and lived for
generations in Arab nations.
A Jewish person has been
variously defined as a person who practices Judaism or is a member of
a specific ethnic identity. In the disparate Israeli population, many
non-Arab Israelis don’t fit either category. Israel has Israeli
citizens but no Israeli nationality. The Ministry of the Interior specifies
either Jewish, Arab or Druze, or country of origin for nationality.
These specifications don’t define a ‘Jewish nation’
but allow Israel to operate as a nation that gives special privileges
to its Jewish nationality. This is comparable to the United States having
a Christian nationality and non-Christians being grouped into Oriental,
Arab, Native American or Other. Most nations have not characterized
Israel as a Jewish state. It is not well publicized in history that
President Truman had doubts about specifying Israel by a denomination.
When he signed the document that asserted United States recognition
of the new state of Israel, the U.S. president inserted the word ‘provisional’
before state, and deleted the word ‘Jewish’ from Jewish
state.
So, why not either a bi-national
state or two independent states? Israel cannot and will not accept either
suggestion. Since 1948, all Israeli governments have promoted polices
of gaining more territory and, after the 1967 war, advancing more settlements.
Acceptance of a bi-national state will be an admission that Israel’s
policies have been in error, and Israel will lose its raison d’être.
No Israeli leader wants to be perceived by history as having interrupted
Israel’s self-chosen destiny. Israeli leaders might pay lip service
to an independent Palestinian state but they won’t allow a viable
Palestinian state, and for well-chosen reasons; fear that the Palestinian
state will harbor militants or grow sufficiently strong to challenge
Israel.
The danger that Israel will
use a bi-national state as a cover to dominate of all of Palestine and
then slowly exile the Palestinians deters the Palestinian leadership
from accepting a single state. Many Palestinian leaders also doubt Israel
will allow a viable Palestinian state. One reason for this belief is
that land requires water, and Israel has demonstrated it intends to
maintain the water for its own use. These Palestinian leaders feel they
have no choice but to battle until events force Israel into an acceptable
compromise. For Israel it is an all or nothing proposition. For the
Palestinians it is nothing if they don’t obtain all.
The problem for Israel is
that wherever it extends itself it will meet an adversary. Even if the
Arab nations accommodate Israel’s expansion, it will only be a
temporary maneuver. The Arab nations will never forget the humiliations,
the intrusions, the many lost wars and their casualties. Israel has
nowhere to go, and this creates a major dilemma. When Israel is too
extended to satisfactorily defend itself, it will use the threat of
its mightiest weapons, which includes its nuclear arsenal. The power
of this threat is the principal reason Israel is concerned with Iran
gaining nuclear weapons. Israel does not fear Iran will use these weapons
– that will be suicide - it fears that an Iranian nuclear bomb
will neutralize Israel’s nuclear threat.
Demographics might provide
the catalyst that reverses history. Immigration to Israel has slowed.
The Jerusalem Post newspaper claims 19,000 new immigrants arrived in
Israel last year, compared to the previous three years, in which there
were between 21,000 and 22,000 immigrants annually. Emigration from
Israel proceeds at a quickened pace each year so that present emigration
exceeds immigration. The prediction for year 2007 expects 14,400 immigrants
to arrive in Israel and 20,000 Israelis to leave the country.
Many Israelis, although technically
still considered Israelis and recorded in the population statistics,
have citizenship and residency in other countries. Although exact figures
are not available, Israel’s absorption ministry estimated in 2006
that about 600,000 Israelis had left the country to live abroad. Since
many Israelis carry dual citizenship and return to Israel only for brief
interludes, that total can probably be doubled. It has also been shown
that Israelis of Arab nationality who trace their heritage back more
two generations might be comparable in numbers to Israelis of Jewish
nationality who also trace their heritage back two generations.
Future demographics favor
the Palestinians. The trend is towards an Israel that has decreasing
Jewish dominance. This phenomenon might stimulate an increase in Jewish
emigration. If the moment approaches when Israel proves to be reverting
to the conditions in the period before Zionism diverted the course of
history, the world’s collective institutions will ponder if the
only choices for obtaining a solution to the Middle East crisis are
either a bi-national state or two independent states. Legality might
finally find its rightful place in the discussion – who owns the
land; who possessed the land for centuries; who occupied the lands for
centuries? The choice for obtaining Middle East peace then becomes either
forcing the return to the conditions when the Zionist thrust deflected
history or allowing a trajectory to increased destruction and possible
nuclear annihilation. This choice is neither a recommendation nor a
prediction, and those who believe in peace with justice must continue
their struggle. Nevertheless, the inexorable and natural course of history
might speak for everyone and patiently resolve the Middle East Crisis.
Dan Lieberman
has been active in alternative politics for many years. He is the Editor
of Alternative Insight , a monthly web based newsletter. Dan has written
many published articles on the Middle East conflict.[email protected]
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.