roots of the conflict from origin to the occupation n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Roots of the Conflict – From Origin to the Occupation PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Roots of the Conflict – From Origin to the Occupation

play fullscreen
1 / 118

Roots of the Conflict – From Origin to the Occupation

126 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Roots of the Conflict – From Origin to the Occupation

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Roots of the Conflict – From Origin to the Occupation Friends of Palestine Society University of Warwick

  2. The Jewish Diaspora • Effectively begins in 66CE after the Jewish revolt and the Roman capture of Jerusalem. • Some attempts to recolonise surrounding areas, attempts crushed by 1st century Roman emperors. • Jerusalem remains forbidden to Jews until it falls into Muslim rule • Jews remain a tiny minority until the 20th Century

  3. Nationalism • An ideology dating from 18th century Europe, closely related to and developed in the French revolution. • Nationalism relies on 3 claims: • There are things called nations: groups of people defined in some sort of common identity, often in terms of common origin, ethnicity, or cultural ties. • There are things called states, bureaucratic, political entities with jurisdiction of governance over a geographic area. • States should exist to serve and be identified with a specific nation, forming nation-states, and the justification for one’s self determination depends on one’s membership to a nation. Zionism is Jewish nationalism – to be brought about by a colonialist project. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/#2.1

  4. Origins of Zionism • Zionism emerges in 19th century nationalist Europe. • Two types: • Eastern Zionism: Founded by material and physical hardship in Eastern Europe and Russia. • Western Zionism: Though in the West laws lead largely to political emancipation, Western Jews feel discriminated and isolated. • Practical Zionism originates from the East. First settlements created in the 1880s , by a central organisation, Hovevei Tzion -‘lovers of Zion’. These were largely small and unsuccessful.

  5. Origins of Zionism • Defining works in the movement • Leo Pinsker’s Selbstemanzipation  -‘Autoemancipation’ - published in 1882 (read: http://www.mideastweb.org/autoemancipation.htm) • Theodor Herzl’s ‘Der Judenstaat ’ –The Jewish state- published in 1896. (read: http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/6640/zion/judenstaadt.html)

  6. Theodor Herzl • Born in Hungary, his family moved to Vienna, western educated, became a doctor at law – but moved to work as a journalist • Surprisingly he had neither read other Zionist works, nor been aware of Hovenei Tzion while writing the Jewish state. • He worked in France during the Dreyfus affair and was inspired by it to write the Jewish State. • The defining aspect of Herlz’s work is that he provides a specific plan for how Zionism would succeed. • He defines the Jews as a nation , rejects concepts of integration as a solution and believes anti-semitism cannot stop whatever the attitude of Jews in their host countries. • Herlz’s state is based on socialist and democratic principles, with the state and private sector working closely together.

  7. Origins of Zionism 6 Zionist Congresses were convened under Herlz between 1897 and 1902. In these Zionist organisations are formed: - The World Zionist organisaion • The Jewish national fund • The Jewish Colonial trust • Die Welt, the movement’s newspaper • At the same time not all Jews support Zionism – some believe integration can be achieved, and Zionism will only fuel anti-Semitism

  8. Origins of Zionism • Palestine selected as destination for Zionism in first Zionist Congress (read program of first congress at: http://www.mideastweb.org/basleprogram.htm ) • The question of the people living in the Zionist destination is never really considered early on. • 2 rabbis in Vienna send a fact finding mission, which returns with the message ‘The bride is beautiful but she is married to another man’ • Population in early 19th Century: 350,000 • Population by 1914: 657,000 Muslim Arabs, 81,000 Christian Arabs, and 59,000 Jews 1 1 The Population of Palestine: Population History and Statistics of the Late Ottoman Period and the Mandate Justin McCarthy

  9. Origins of Zionism • For Herlz, the Arabs would welcome them, since the Jews would bring the culture, prosperity and wonders of the West. • In his novel Auldneuland (http://www.zionism-israel.com/an/altneuland.html ), a utopian vision of a perfect state by late 19th C standards, Herlz describes how the Arabs would live side by side to Jews in a pluralist society. ‘The Jews have made us prosperous, why should we be angry at them?’ Herlz asks for a great power sponsor- makes his case in the Ottoman empire as well as Brittain and other powers, but his request is not accepted untill his death, 1904.

  10. World War 1 Ottoman empire, controlling Palestine and the lands of the Middle East allies itself with the Central Powers against France and England 3 different agreements define the future of the Middle East, all drawn during the period of World War 1: • The Sykes Picot agreement • The McMahon-Hussein correspondence • The Balfour declaration

  11. McMahon- Hussein correspondence 1915-1916 The Ottoman empire’s entry into the War arises concerns in Britain of Islamic solidarity - The Sultan, in his role as caliph, proclaimed Jihad against the Entente, and could potentially create unrest in the British route to India Therefore England sought its own Islamic dignitary to serve as an ally, to counterbalance the sultan-caliph. The correspondence: A series of letters between: Sheriff Hussein ibn Ali, amir of Mecca and Sir Henry McMahon British high commissioner in Egypt, in which Husseyin promises to lead the Arabs into revolt against the Ottomans, in return for an Arab state Read: http://www.mideastweb.org/mcmahon.htm

  12. McMahon- Hussein correspondence 1915-1916 • ‘’England will acknowledge the independence of the Arab countries, bounded on the north by Mersina and Adana up to the 37th degree of latitude, on which degree fall Birijik, Urfa, Mardin, Midiat, Jezirat (Ibn 'Umar), Amadia, up to the border of Persia; on the east by the borders of Persia up to the Gulf of Basra; on the south by the Indian Ocean, with the exception of the position of Aden to remain as it is; on the west by the Red Sea, the Mediterranean Sea up to Mersina. England to approve the proclamation of an Arab Khalifate of Islam. ‘’ • Sherif Hussein ibn Ali • July 14th1915 • ‘’England will acknowledge the independence of the Arab countries, bounded on the north by Mersina and Adana up to the 37th degree of latitude, on which degree fall Birijik, Urfa, Mardin, Midiat, Jezirat (Ibn 'Umar), Amadia, up to the border of Persia; on the east by the borders of Persia up to the Gulf of Basra; on the south by the Indian Ocean, with the exception of the position of Aden to remain as it is; on the west by the Red Sea, the Mediterranean Sea up to Mersina. England to approve the proclamation of an Arab Khalifate of Islam. ‘’ • Sherif Hussein ibn Ali • July 14th1915 No maps are drawn in the correspondence, and the borders of the state are subject to interpretation. Initial request Bordered: North: by Mersina up to 37th degree of latitude to the border of Persia East: By borders of Persia to Gulf of Basra South: by Indian Ocean West: by the red sea to Mediterranean sea to Mersina No maps are drawn in the correspondence, and the borders of the state are subject to interpretation. Initial request Bordered: North: by Mersina up to 37th degree of latitude to the border of Persia East: By borders of Persia to Gulf of Basra South: by Indian Ocean West: by the red sea to Mediterranean sea to Mersina http://www.mideastweb.org/mcmahon.htm

  13. McMahon- Hussein correspondence 1915-1916 With regard to the questions of limits and boundaries, it would appear to be premature to consume our time in discussing such details in the heat of war, and while, in many portions of them, the Turk is up to now in effective occupation -McMahon, August 30th ‘’As the limits and boundaries demanded are not those of one person whom we should satisfy and with whom we should discuss them after the war is over, but our peoples have seen that the life of their new proposal is bound at least by these limits and their word is united on this.  ‘’ -Hussein, September 9th 1915 ‘’The two districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab, and should be excluded from the limits demanded. ‘’ -McMahon, October 24t 1915 McMahon accepts the boundaries, excepting: - the inclusion of districts of Mersina and Alexandretta - coastal portions of Syria to the West of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo as they are not purely Arab http://www.mideastweb.org/mcmahon.htm

  14. McMahon- Hussein correspondence 1915-1916 ‘’As for those regions lying within those frontiers wherein Great Britain is free to act without detriment to the interest of her ally, France, I am empowered in the name of the Government of Great Britain to give the following assurances and make the following reply to your letter:-1. Subject to the above modifications, Great Britain is prepared to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs in all the regions within the limits demanded by the Sherif of Mecca.’’ ‘’5. With regard to the vilayets of Baghdad and Basra, the Arabs will recognise that the established position and interests of Great Britain necessitate special administrative arrangements in order to secure these territories from foreign aggression, to promote the welfare of the local populations and to safeguard our mutual economic interests.’’ - McMahon, October 24t 1915 However, McMacmahon mentions that British acceptance of borders is in those areas wherein Great Britain is free to act without detriment to the interest of her ally France AND That special administrative arrangements need to be arranged in the areas of Baghdad and Basra. http://www.mideastweb.org/mcmahon.htm

  15. McMahon- Hussein correspondence 1915-1916 • ‘’we renounce our insistence on the inclusion of the vilayets of Mersina and Adana in the Arab Kingdom. But the two vilayets of Aleppo and Beirut and their sea coasts are purely Arab vilayets, and there is no difference between a Moslem and a Christian Arab: they are both descendants of one forefather. ’’ • Hussein, November 5th • ‘’With regard to the vilayets of Aleppo and Beirut, the Government of Great Britain have fully understood and taken careful note of your observations, but, as the interests of our ally, France, are involved in them both, the question will require careful consideration and a further communication on the subject will be addressed to you in due course. ’’ • - McMahon, December 14th • Hussein agrees to exclude Mersina and Alexandretta, but not the coastal areas of Syria. • McMahon responds that since the interests of France are involved in those areas, further negotiation on those areas will be discussed later. • Rest of correspondence focuses on war and logistics issues http://www.mideastweb.org/mcmahon.htm

  16. The Sykes Picot Agreement - 1916 Both France and England are afraid that after the war, the other side may gain excessive influence in the Middle East region. In secret, in 1916, the two sides sign an agreement with the assent of Russia, for Post War dismemberment of the Ottoman empire http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2001/israel_and_the_palestinians/key_documents/1681362.stm

  17. The Sykes Picot Agreement - 1916 ‘’It is accordingly understood between the French and British governments: That France and Great Britain are prepared to recognise and protect an independent Arab states or a confederation of Arab states (a) and (b) marked on the annexed map, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief. That in area (a) France, and in area (b) Great Britain, shall have priority of right of enterprise and local loans. That in area (a) France, and in area (b) Great Britain, shall alone supply advisers or foreign functionaries at the request of the Arab state or confederation of Arab states. That in the blue area France, and in the red area Great Britain, shall be allowed to establish such direct or indirect administration or control as they desire and as they may think fit to arrange with the Arab state or confederation of Arab states. That in the brown area there shall be established an international administration, the form of which is to be decided upon after consultation with Russia, and subsequently in consultation with the other allies, and the representatives of the sheriff of Mecca.’’ The agreement is self-contradictory as to its attempts to include the agreements made with Hussein Understandings of the Agreement: • France and Britain are prepared to recognise and ‘protect’ an independent Arab state or confederation of states. • The area will be divided in 5 Regions: • In two France and England will each have indirect influence and priority of rights and enterprise, and will supply ‘advisers’ and foreign functionaries. • In the other two, England and France will be allowed to establish direct administration and control. • In the area of Palestine, an international administration will be created • All actions in the regions be done and arranged with the Arab states and the sheriff of Mecca. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2001/israel_and_the_palestinians/key_documents/1681362.stm

  18. The Balfour declaration - 1917 November 2nd, 1917 Dear Lord Rothschild, I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty'sGovernment, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet. "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." I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation. Yours sincerely, Arthur James Balfour http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/balfour.asp

  19. The Balfour declaration – 1917Why? • Because British believed Zionists had large influence in Russia and the USA and could convince those governments to join the war effort. • At the same time, Britain was afraid Germany or France might make a commitment to the Zionists.

  20. The Balfour declaration – 1917How do we know? Minutes of discussion on the issue on War Cabinet meeting No.227, 245, 259, 261 • - Declaration made for purely propaganda justifications • At the same time, the British war cabinet spend considerable time on the question of whether a declaration could create anti-Semitic backlash, a development undesirable for the British government. • Though Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs expresses concerns that Zionism cannot succeed, there is no particular wish by the cabinet for it to be unsuccessful. • There is never any consideration and discussion made at all regarding the people already living in Palestine. No. 227: ‘’there was a very strong and enthusiastic organisation, more particularly in the United States, who were very zealous in this matter (Zionism), and his (Acting Secretary of State Foreign Affairs) belief was that it would be of most substantial assistance to the Allies to have the earnestness and enthusiasm of these people enlisted on our side. ‘’ No. 245: ‘’...the secretary of State for foreign affairs stated that the German Government were making great efforts to capture the sympathy of the Zionist Movement. This movement... Had behind it the support of a majority of Jews, at all events in Russia and America... Mr. Balfour then read a very sympathetic declaration by the French government which had been conveyed to the Zionists, and he state that he knew that President Wilson was extremely favourable to the movement. ‘’ No: 261: ‘’(Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs says) If we could make a declaration favourable to such an ideal (Zionism) we should be able to carry on extremely useful propaganda in Russia and America’’ ‘Sources in the History of the Modern Middle East’, Akram Fouad Khater

  21. The Balfour declaration - 1917 November 2nd, 1917 Dear Lord Rothschild, I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty'sGovernment, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet. "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." I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation. Yours sincerely, Arthur James Balfour http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/balfour.asp

  22. Outcome Hussein starts the Arab revolt June 10, 1916 Ottoman areas in Arabian peninsula soon fall into his hands. Although the revolt does not spread extensively or gain massive support, being more a matter of Hussein’s family and its supporters, it manages to capture Damascus in 1918, seen as its ultimate triumph. The capture is widely applauded in the Arab world. Amir Faysal, son of Sheriff Hussein, commander of the Arab forces, starts forming a state in Damascus. April 1920, in San Remo conference, France and England divide the Ottoman lands. The mandates for Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine are drawn. These are effectively colonial entities. France, having the mandate for Syria marches into Damascus and throws Amir Faysal out. He is later brought by Britain into Iraq and made its first king, to serve essentially British interests.

  23. Outcome At the same time, when Amir Faysal is removed from Syria, his brother Amir Abdallah moves a small force to Ma’an. Britain decides to integrate Abdallah into its imperial network. Abdallah is effectively given part of what was to be the mandate for Palestine. The amirate of Transjordan is born. Transjordan at the time of its creation is little more than a desert region of Beduin tribes. Amman, the capital, is a large village of 2500 to 5000 people. Abdallah becomes a close ally of Britain. Britain places emphasis on building a reliable armed forced to police the area, and the Arab legion is born.

  24. Outcome Sheriff Hussein faces discontent in his own kingdom in Arabia. Reputation suffers further when he takes on the title of caliph. A Wahhabist warrior-statesman, Abd al-Aziz ibnSa’ud based on the city of Riyadh takes Mecca and Medina in 1924 and drives Hussein into exile. IbnSa’ud negotiates an agreement with Britain in 1927. He officially names his new kingdom from his family name in 1932, Saudi Arabia.

  25. The Mandate for Palestine ‘’If the Arabs are established as I have asked in my manifesto of 4 January, addressed to the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I will carry out what is written in this agreement. If changes are made, I cannot be answerable for failing to carry out this agreement. ’’ ‘’All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development. ‘’ ‘’The Zionist Organization proposes to send to Palestine a Commission of experts to make a survey of the economic possibilities of the country, and to report upon the best means for its development. The Zionist Organization will place the aforementioned Commission at the disposal of the Arab State for the purpose of a survey of the economic possibilities of the Arab State and to report upon the best means for its development. The Zionist Organization will use its best efforts to assist the Arab State in providing the means for developing the natural resources and economic possibilities thereof. ‘’ From 1917 to 1920 is being placed under British military Occupation. Amir Faisal, then still in Syria, begins discussions with Weizman. An agreement is reached January 3rd 1919: • The Arab state will be created, as per the points issued by Faisal in a manifesto published 4th January. • Faisal would agree to Jewish immigration and settlement. • The Zionist organisation will use its best efforts for the development of the Arab state. • This agreement is rendered null when the French remove Faisal and the Arab state is not created • Faisal never agreed to a Jewish State in Palestine http://www.mideastweb.org/feisweiz.htm

  26. The Mandate for Palestine – The Palin Report In 1920 violent protests break out in Jerusalem by Arabs in early April. A commission is sent to Palestine to discover the reasons for the violence. The Palin report is made. Findings: disturbances were caused: - by the Arabs' disappointment overunfulfilled promises of independence, made during World War I to Sharif Husayn ibn Ali of Mecca -belief that the Balfour Declaration implied the denial of their own right of self-determination; -fear that the establishment of a Jewish National Home would lead to such substantial Jewish immigration that the Arabs would be subject to the Jewish community. -The report argued, feelings were aggravated by the proclamation of Amir Faisal ibn Hussein as king of Syria, in March 1920, with a potential claim to Palestine. -Feelings also aggravated by the actions of the Zionist Commission, which sought a privileged status vis-à-vis the British military administration and asserted the right of the Jewish community to state-hood. -The report called the Zionist Commission "arrogant,insolent and provocative" and said that its members could "easily precipitate a catastrophe"  http://www.answers.com/topic/palin-commission-report

  27. The Mandate for Palestine – The Palin Report - Findings paralleled the views of General Bols, who wanted to reduce the authority of the Zionist Commission and reassure the Arabs • The report was never made public or published, and did not generate any debate in London. • Instead British government decided that the Arabs would acquiesce once British pro-Zionist policy was implemented firmly. Military administration replaced with a civilian administration on the day before the Palin Report was submitted; • Administration guided in its policy by the Balfour Declaration and presided over by a Jewish High Commissioner

  28. The Mandate for Palestine The mandate awarded to Britain, 1920, San Remo Conference. High Commissioner placed: Sir Herbert Samuel A Jewish Zionist. Samuel stated in the conference that the Zionist objective is to make Palestine as Jewish as England is English. Zionist interpretation: that Palestine would become a Jewish state and Britain should facilitate that. British interpretation: no commitment to any idea of a state. New provisions are made in the mandate, 1920, that alarm the Palestine Arabs, and raise Zionist expectation

  29. The Mandate for Palestine The Mandate grants Zionists direct access to the High Commissioner, and direct say over the administration of the mandate. ‘’ART.11… The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration. Any such arrangements shall provide that no profits distributed by such agency, directly or indirectly, shall exceed a reasonable rate of interest on the capital, and any further profits shall be utilised by it for the benefit of the country in a manner approved by the Administration. ‘’ ‘’ART. 4. An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country. ‘’ No such powers granted to the Arabs whatsoever. http://www.mideastweb.org/mandate.htm

  30. The Mandate for Palestine • Hebert Samuel attempts to create a constitution in 1922 and a legislative council of elected Christian, Muslim and Jewish representatives. • In 1923 he attempts to form an advisory council of Arab and Jewish representatives. • Both fail as Arab leaders refuse to serve any body that does not annul the Balfour declaration. • Palestinian leaders refuse to work in a body in which doing so implies official acceptance of the Balfour declaration. But they do not hesitate to attempt to create their own groups to cooperate with the mandatory government, which do not imply acceptance of the Balfour declaration.

  31. Palestinian Organisation in Mandate Years • Local branches of Muslim-Christian associations formed in large towns in 1918-1919. • Delegates meet in Jerusalem in 1919, form the first Palestinian Arab Congress (before even the official mandate is given). • Meet Annually to adopt resolutions on matters of relationship to British and the Zionists. • In 1920 Congress, an Arab Executive is created under Muza Kazim al Husseyni, former mayor of Jerusalem. • Claimed to represent Palestinians, it is not accepted by the British. • Due to its inability to be a proper communication channel, it remains unorganised, and dies in 1934 with Muza Kazim al-Husseyni.

  32. Palestinian Organisation in Mandate Years POV: Samuel’s attitude was that in order to have any say on mandate administration, Palestinian leaders should serve in bodies, in which by doing so, they effectively accept the Balfour declaration. Given that Palestinian Arabs form the vast majority of the mandate yet had no say on the Balfour declaration, that the British are nothing but a colonial occupier, and that the Zionist proclaim worrying ambitions of statehood through the declaration that is not reasonable. At the same time, the Palestinians attempted to create their own representative bodies to communicate with the mandate administration long before Samuel’s constitutional attempts. They were rejected because they did not accept the Balfour declaration arrangements. It was Sir Samuel that was unreasonable – unwilling to accept Palestinian representation or advise, unless they accept Zionism.

  33. Palestinian Organisation in Mandate Years The British also attempted to play division between the two major families, the Nashashibis and the al’Husseynis, through their appointment policy. -When Raghib al-Nashashibi was appointed mayor of Jerusalem in 1920 -The British selected Hajj Amin al-Huseyni to serve as mufti of Jerusalem. Nashashibi responded declaring he would oppose any position of the mufti. The mufti of Jerusalem, responsible for all Islamic affairs, had his jurisdiction expanded by the British to all the mandate. This in essense made Hajj Amin the most well connected and powerful Arab in Palestine. When in 1921 the British created the Supreme Muslim council, responsible for Islamic institutions, Hajj Amin was elected president

  34. Palestinian Organisation in Mandate Years The Supreme Muslim Council did not serve as a representative body for Palestinians – it was merely sometimes consulted. Hajj Amin is vilified by Zionists as an ‘Islamic-fascist’. • Hajj Amin was more a political figure given a religious post. He was not driven by Muslim religion. • He was effectively granted his authority by the British. • The Supreme Muslim Council never truly gained full control of the Palestinian population, or coordinated its actions later on. • Hajj Amin was a far more moderate and politically motivated figure than Zionists portray. Although Hajj Amin has been vilified by Zionists and glorified by certain Arab nationalists, his political behavior was more moderate than either group acknowledges. He was too pragmatic a politician to allow his opposition to Zionism to deceive him into thinking that an Arab uprising could dislodge the British. He also recognised that his own continued tenure in office depended upon British goodwill. Therefore until the outbreak of violence in 1936, the mufti urged restraint on his followers and demonstrated a willingness to cooperate with the British in seeking a negotiated solution to the question of Jewish immigration. History of the Modern Middle East, William Cleveland

  35. Hajj Amin Al-Husseyni Attended initially an Islamic School, Jerusalem Turkish at a government school French with at the Alliance israélite universelle with anti-Zionist Jewish director Albert Antébi Then studied Islamic law at Al-Azhar University in Cairo Finally studied at School of Administration in Istanbul, the most secular of Ottoman institutions . Served initially in Ottoman army in WWI, was injured and returned to Jerusalem – being there when it was captured. Joined the Arab revolt armies – in Palin report he is said to have had a particularly pro-British stance when recruited. In Palin report it is also reported that British war pamphlets proclaimed to the Arabs soldiers they were fighting ‘a national cause to liberate their country from the Turks’. Started Jerusalem branch of the pro-British Syrian-based 'Arab Club in 1919. Attitudes change when the mandate and Balfour declaration are made known. In the April 1920 violence, he helped incite the Arabs. Until 1921 he supports Arab nationalism centred on Greater Syria. When French occupy Syria, he turns to a Palestinian centred nationalism focused on Jerusalem

  36. Hajj Amin Al-Husseyni- Nazi ties Pre WWII he communicated with Nazis to claim support and to ask they block Jewish immigration to Palestine. At the same time he also expressed willingness to help the French government in the region, and courted the American government as a non-imperialist entity who could see the errors of Zionism. During the war he took a pro-axis stance, but this did not reflect Palestinian sentiment. His cousin Jemal and the Nashashibi family favoured dealing with the British. None of the factions though controlled sentiment on the ground. POV: Hajj Amin was driven by anti-Zionism and nationalism. His support for the Nazis was not driven by any particular ideological commitment to Nazism or fascism, or any such Arab popular feeling – they were merely the party which was on the opposite side of the British, who were facilitating Zionism

  37. Jewish Organisation in Mandate Years Jewish organisation was more extensive, better connected and funded. • Founded in Original Zionist Congresses, 1896-1902 • Created as public body for consultation with British Administration, 1921 • Zionist executive reorganised into Jewish agency in 1929. • Elected body of 300 delegates, 1920 • Council empowered with administrative decisions to be carried out with the British administration, selected by the national Assembly

  38. Jewish Organisation in Mandate Years • Jewish trade union founded in 1920, expanded to control most enterprise, create public works and create many companies. Histradrut found itself both controllin capital and representing labour. • One of its objectives being the self-sufficiency of Jewish labour and produce, it boycotted Arab workers and products. • Kibbutz were Jewish communal farmer communities, were all property belonged to the community, and responsibilities shared equally. • Haganah was the Jewish defense force created in 1920 after the riots of that year. • The leftist labor party created in 1930 that dominated political life until 1970s. For early Zionists, Zionism and socialism went hand by hand, with a belief in Jewish rejuvenation through the dignity of labor.

  39. Jewish Organisation in Mandate Years Leading political figure to emerge, David Ben-Gurion: -Born in Poland, passionate socialist and Zionist. -Moved to Palestine 1906, worked as a farmhand. -Worked in various socialist parties that merged to form Mapai. -Rose through the ranks, became secretary-general of the Histadrut in 1921 to 1935 and chairman of Jewish agency from 1935 to 1948. -POV: Publically, before 1936, Ben Gurion proclaimed that there was no conflict between Zionism and the Arabs – that the conflict was a socialist class one between Arab peasantry and landowners, and once the landowners were deposed the Arabs would see their interests lay with Zionsm. Privately, Ben Gurion did not believe this explanation, and saw the conflict with the Palestinian Arabs as an inescapable problem

  40. Jewish Organisation in Mandate Years Revisionist Zionism and Ze’ev Jabotinsky: The major opposition movement against the established order in Palestine, Jabotinsky’s revisionist Zionist 3 more maximalist positions: • That the Zionist land should extend to TransJordan, and should be captured by massively increased immigration, 50000 a year. • That Zionist Movement should immediately declare a Jewish commonwealth. • The Concept of the Iron Wall

  41. The Iron Wall ‘’My readers have a general idea of the history of colonisation in other countries.  I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted, and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonisation being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent. The native populations, civilised or uncivilised, have always stubbornly resisted the colonists, irrespective of whether they were civilised or savage.’’ ‘’We may tell them whatever we like about the innocence of our aims, watering them down and sweetening them with honeyed words to make them palatable, but they know what we want, as well as we know what they do not want.  They feel at least the same instinctive jealous love of Palestine, as the old Aztecs felt for ancient Mexico, and the Sioux for their rolling Prairies.  To imagine, as our Arabophiles do, that they will voluntarily consent to the realisation of Zionism, in return for the moral and material conveniences which the Jewish colonist brings with him, is a childish notion, which has at bottom a kind of contempt for the Arab people; it means that they despise the Arab race, which they regard as a corrupt mob that can be bought and sold, and are willing to give up their fatherland for a good railway system. ’’ ‘’Colonisation carries its own explanation, the only possible explanation, unalterable and as clear as daylight to every ordinary Jew and every ordinary Arab. Colonisation can have only one aim, and Palestine Arabs cannot accept this aim. It lies in the very nature of things, and in this particular regard nature cannot be changed. ’’ -Ze’ev Jabotinsky 1923 An article published in 1923, with a follow up, ‘’The ethics of the Iron Wall’’ - Main arguments: The Palestinian Arabs will never accept Zionism, as it would never be accepted by any indigenous people anywhere in the world. Colonialism carries its own explanation, and the Palestinians are unwilling to accept it. Whatever promises of economic wellbeing Zionists might offer cannot ‘trick’ Palestinians out of this basic reality. http://www.mideastweb.org/ironwall.htm

  42. The Iron Wall ‘’Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach.              That is our Arab policy; not what we should be, but what it actually is, whether we admit it or not.  What need, otherwise, of the Balfour Declaration? Or of the Mandate?  Their value to us is that outside Power has undertaken to create in the country such conditions of administration and security that if the native population should desire to hinder our work, they will find it impossible.  And we are all of us ,without any exception, demanding day after day that this outside Power, should carry out this task vigorously and with determination.               In this matter there is no difference between our "militarists" and our "vegetarians". Except  that the  first prefer that the iron wall should consist of Jewish soldiers, and the others are content that they should be British.              We all demand that there should be an iron wall. Yet we keep spoiling our own case, by talking about "agreement" which means telling the Mandatory Government that the important thing is not the iron wall, but discussions. Empty rhetoric of this kind is dangerous. And that is why itis not only a pleasure but a duty to discredit it and to demonstrate that it is both fantastic and dishonest’’ ‘’In the second place, this does not mean that there cannot be any agreement with the Palestine Arabs. What is impossible is a voluntary agreement. As long as the Arabs feel that there is the least hope of getting rid of us, they will refuse to give up this hope in return for either kind words or for bread and butter, because they are not a rabble, but a living people. And when a living people yields in matters of such a vital character it is only when there is no longer any hope of getting rid of us, because they can make no breach in the iron wall.’’ A voluntary agreement with the Arabs cannot be made. The Zionists must build an Iron Wall, a Jewish military force so disproportionately strong it can defeat all Arab uprisings and resistance. An agreement with the Arabs is possible, but only after the iron wall ensures they’ve lost all hope of defeating Zionism, and accept it out of despair. Peace is possible and desirable, but only after conflict and the imposition of Zionist strength http://www.mideastweb.org/ironwall.htm

  43. The Iron Wall ‘’I am prepared to take an oath binding ourselves  and our descendants that we shall never do anything contrary to the principle of equal rights, and that we shallnever try to eject anyone. This seems to me a fairly peaceful credo.’’ ‘’Emotionally, my attitude to the Arabs is the same as to all other nations – polite indifference. Politically, my attitude is determined by two principles.  First of all, I consider it utterly impossible to eject the Arabs from Palestine. There will always be two nations in Palestine – which is good enough for me, provided the Jews become the majority. And secondly, I belong to the group that once drew up the Helsingfors Programme , the programme of national rights for all nationalities living in the same State.  In drawing up that programme, we had in mind not only the Jews, but all nations everywhere, and its basis is equality of rights.’’  ’’Let us go back to the Helsingfors Programme. Since I am one of those who helped to draft it, I am naturally not disposed to question the justice of the principles advocated there.  The programme guarantees citizenship equality, and national self-determination.’’ -Ze’ev Jabotinsy, 1923 • Jabotinsky knows he will be attacked as immoral by other Zionists. • He explicitly states he does not believe the Arabs should be expelled. • He states that after the iron wall makes Palestinians accept Zionism, they will have equal rights and citizenship in the Jewish state – as outlined in the Helsingfors programme which he believes not ever Arab intellectuals have heard or can understand • Jabotinsky has no problem with there being two nations in Palestine As long as the Jews are the majority http://www.mideastweb.org/ironwall.htm

  44. The Iron Wall He pre-empts the accusation he is immoral: ‘’either Zionism is moral and just ,or it is immoral and unjust. But that is a question that we should have settled before we became Zionists.  Actually we have settled that question, and in the affirmative.   We hold that Zionism is moral and just. And since it is moral and just, justice must be done, no matter whether Joseph or Simon or Ivan or Achmet agree with it or not.’’ http://www.mideastweb.org/ironwall.htm

  45. The Iron Wall: ‘’ … Culturally they are five hundred years behind us, they have neither our endurance nor our determination; but they are just as good psychologists as we are, and their minds have been sharpened like ours by centuries of fine-spun logomachy’’ ‘’It is true that these natives happen to be black.  But that does not alter the essential fact.  If it is immoral to colonise a country against the will of its native population, the same morality must apply equally to the black man as to the white. Of course, the blackman may not be sufficiently advanced to think of sending delegations to London, but he will soon find some kindhearted white friends, who will instruct him. Though should these natives even prove utterly helpless, like children, the matter would only become worse.  Then if colonisation is invasion and robbery, the greatest crime of all would be to rob helpless children’’ Two points: • Jabotinsky believes the Arabs are culturally backwards compared to the Jews • Jabotinsky believes in the backwardness of the black man, when discussing the suggestion of Zionism in Uganda. • If Zionism in Palestine is stealing from the Palestinians, in Uganda it will be even more morally reprehensible, since it would be like stealing from children. Even if the black man is not sufficiently advanced to send delegations to London, he will be helped by kind hearted white people. • Jabotinsky considers it a given that his audience shares the same conception of Arabs and black people. http://www.mideastweb.org/ironwall.htm

  46. The Iron Wall POV: Jabotinsky shows the context into which Zionism is developed Zionism is a product of its times, encompassing popular western attitudes of the time. - Colonisation is good for the Colonised • Western values, culture and conceptions are inherently superior to those of the rest of the world • Spreading the culture and ideas of the West through colonisation is a good thing.

  47. The Iron Wall POV: • Jabotinsky’s justification for the iron wall can only hold if one accepts nationalism. • Can there truly be equality and equal citizenship, both in practical and in psychological terms, in a state that must ensure that one nation is always a majority, and which views itself as centred on one nation? • What would the creation of that majority, and Zionist immigration imply in practise?