1. Introduction of the Issue
Israel Before The British Mandate
The question than, is if there has never been a country approximating Israel that was a Muslim/Arab country, and the original usage of the word for a geographical area "Palestine" by the British explicitly provided for a Jewish State, than why are Arabs in Israel now and since the British Mandate referred to as "Palestinians" as if they are the original citizens of a country called "Palestine"?
The Israeli/Arab Conflict - The McMahon–Hussein Correspondence - 1916
"1. By allying with the British and helping to defeat the Ottomans, the Arabs did earn a national Arab State in the Middle East.
2. The British promise/agreement to the Arabs for an Arab State preceded any such agreement with the Jews for a Jewish State in Israel.
3. The British were clear that not all of the Middle East would be an Arab State and never formally communicated to the Arabs that Palestine would be part of an Arab State.
4. While there never has been an Arab and or Muslim State approximating the area of Israel and under the Ottomans there was no "Palestine" entity or governing area approximating Israel, the British did use the name "Palestine" to refer to the area."
The Israeli/Arab Conflict - The Balfour Declaration - 1917
"Violent Arab rejection of The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was the start of the Israeli/Arab conflict which has continued to the present time. We will also see in subsequent posts here that the position of the two sides regarding Jewish and Arab states in Israel has not changed since 1917:
Jewish position - Has always been in favor of and offered Two-State solution.
Arab position - Has always opposed and rejected offer of Two-State solution."
The Israeli/Arab Conflict - The Peel Commission - 1937
Even though the Peel Plan was the first specific partition plan it became the basis for all subsequent partition plans. The Plan favored the Jewish side because of British financial reasons and the thinking that the Jewish need for a State was much greater than the Arab need. From an Arab standpoint the Plan was unfavorable because they would receive the less developed land (even though the Jews were responsible for most of the development), they would receive proportionately less land based on relative populations (even though this would benefit both sides from a budget standpoint), most transfers would be of Arabs and they would not have an independent State but become a part of Jordan.
The Israeli/Arab Conflict - The Woodhead Commission - 1938
Because the predecessor Plan, The Peel Commission, was accepted in principle by the Jews but not only rejected by the Arabs but created an Arab position of refusing to accept the creation of any Jewish state, Britain tried to create a new Partition Plan which would be much more favorable to the Arabs. The Woodhead Commission Plan was much more favorable to the Arabs as they would have an independent Palestinian state for Arabs, Jews would be required to contribute substantially to this Arab state and the Jewish state would be one fifth the size of the Palestinian state. As a result though, the Arab position did not change. They would not accept and would violently oppose the creation of any Jewish state.
Violent Arab rejection of The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was the start of the Israeli/Arab conflict which has continued to the present time and was the primary Arab reaction to The Woodhead Commission.
2. Discussion
The London Conference - 1939
"The London Conference (1939), or St James Palace Conference, was called by the British Government to plan the future governance of Palestine and an end of the Mandate. It opened on 7 February 1939 in St James's Palace after which the Colonial Secretary, Malcolm MacDonald held a series of separate meetings with an Arab and a Jewish delegation, because the Arab delegation refused to sit in the same room as the Jewish delegation. When Maconald first announced the proposed conference he made clear that if no agreement was reached the government would impose a solution. The process came to an end after five and a half weeks with the British announcing proposals which were later published as the 1939 White Paper"
Britain's proposals were:
"A limit to Jewish immigration over the following five years after which numbers would be set by agreement with the Palestinian Arabs; restrictions on what parts of the country Jews could buy land.
Gradual introduction of Palestinians, Jews and Arabs, into senior administrative posts.
After a period of ten years the British would transfer all powers to a representative Government."
Key related points -
1) Motivation - Britain's motivation here was to favor the Arab side. The biggest current problem was violent Arab rejection of any Jewish state. Also, World War II was looming and all existing Middle Eastern countries were Arab.
2) Expectation - Britain's proposal did look like a stalling for time, at least until the War was over. There was a ten year transitional plan before Britain gave up any control and was conditional on an end to the violence.
3) Limitation - Britain's plan had no specifics.
4) Development - Disproportionate current and future development of Israel by Jews, which benefited/would benefit all inhabitants, was no longer any kind of consideration.
Jewish reaction -
To the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence of 1916 promising the Arabs that most of Palestine would be an Arab state = None.
To the Balfour Declaration of 1917 = Acceptance. Hope was turned into possibility and preparations were started for a Jewish State. The emphasis was on the creation of a Jewish State with little thought as to the extent of the Jewish State and whether there would also be a Palestinian state in Israel.
To The Peel Commission of 1937 = Acceptance of the Plan in general but rejection of the specific borders as too small. Created committee to negotiate specific borders.
To the Woodhead Commission of 1938 = Rejection. Since the recommended Plan would give the Jews one fifth the area of the previous plan and they would be required to provide significant financial assistance to the Arab state which would be five times larger, the Plan was summarily rejected with no offer of negotiation.
To The London Conference of 1939 = "
- no minority status for the Jewish community in Palestine
- the Mandate to remain in place
- Jewish immigration to continue, governed by the capacity of the country to absorb the incomers
- investment to speed up development in Palestine[34] "
Arab reaction -
To the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence of 1916 promising the Arabs that most of Palestine would be an Arab state = Acceptance.
To the Balfour Declaration of 1917 = Rejection. The Arabs were clear that not only would they reject the creation of any Jewish state in Israel but they would be violently opposed.
To The Peel Commission of 1937 = Rejection. The primary specific complaint was that it would give the Jews the best land. The Arabs rejected the granting of any land to the Jews under any form of administration and demanded an end to Jewish immigration.
To the Woodhead Commission of 1938 = Ignored. The Woodhead Commission spent three months in Israel, had fifty-five evidence receiving meetings, and no Arabs participated. This even though the proposed Arab state would be five times larger than the Jewish state and receive significant financial assistance from the Jewish state. If instead of having simply a demand that there be no Jewish State the Arab position had been to just minimize the Jewish state and maximize the Arab one, historically, this would have been the best opportunity for the Arabs to do so.
To The London Conference of 1939 = "
- Independence
- No Jewish National Home in Palestine
- Replacement of the Mandate by a Treaty
- End to Jewish immigration[23] "
3. Conclusion
The conflict for Britain was that the Jews had a much greater need for a homeland than the Arabs because of persecution and the larger the Jewish State the smaller Britain's related financial problem's would be, while the Arabs had a much greater demand than the Jews, that there would be no Jewish State. The imminence of World War II though made the British plan look like a stalling tactic to avoid giving up any control until the War was over.
The biggest current problem for the British was violent Arab protest over the possibility of creating any Jewish State. The attempted British solution was to propose a one State solution here, similar to what was accepted for Lebanon, with Arabs and Jews holding senior government positions.
The London Conference also exposed another serious obstacle to negotiations, the Arab refusal to meet directly with Jews. This implied an Arab attitude of Jewish inferiority even though everyone would agree that the Jews in general were economically superior.
Violent Arab rejection of The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was the start of the Israeli/Arab conflict which has continued to the present time and continued to be the primary Arab reaction to subsequent Plans. We will continue to see in subsequent posts here that the position of the two sides regarding Jewish and Arab states in Israel has not changed since 1917:
Jewish position - Has always been in favor of and offered Two-State solution.
Arab position - Has always opposed and rejected offer of Two-State solution.
In hindsight, the greatest tragedy regarding the failure of a Two-State solution was not that the Arabs still don't have a related State but that 6,000,000 Jews were murdered by a Country with the same main religion as Britain in a Continent with the same religion because there was no Jewish State at the time.
Critics of Israel will try to demonize Israel by posturing and only looking at The Jews/Zionists/Israel's supposed eternal goal of wanting it all. But we need to distinguish between wanting and accepting. It's normal to want more than you are willing to accept but in negotiations what is most important is what you are willing to accept. And that is the difference between Israel and the Arabs and has always been the difference. Regardless of what both sides supposedly want, Israel has always been willing to accept a two-State solution and the Arabs have not.
No comments:
Post a Comment