Back to
Opinions Page
The first call
for “Jewish” nationalism and the creation of a “Jewish” state came
from Imperial France. In 1799, Napoleon Bonaparte, who was
interested in expanding his Empire, stood within twenty-five miles
of Jerusalem and proclaimed: “Israelites arise! Now is the
moment…to claim your political existence as a nation among
nations!” Eight years later, Napoleon issued an invitation for a
Jewish convention for all European Jews.
The French
emperor, however, was not alone in encouraging the Jews to go to
Palestine. Palmerstone of Imperial “Great”
Britain
was interested in facilitating Jewish immigration to
Palestine
in 1840. When Britain bought the Egyptian share in the Suez Canal Corp.
in 1875, Lord Rothschild (Baron de Rothschild) financed the deal.
Two years later, Lord Rotschild financed the first Jewish settlement
in
Palestine,
Betah Tekfa. (Mohammad Hassanine Haikal, Secret Negotiations between
the Arabs and
Israel
– Arabic – pp.
21-51. See also Peter Grose, Israel in the Mind of America, New
York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1983, p. 8)
These imperial
calls were soon echoed by “the three prophetic harbingers of political
Zionism”: Rabbi Yehuda Alkalai (1798-1878), Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Kalischer
(1795-1874), and Moses Hess (1812-1875).
Moses Hess was a
German socialist ideologue. In the 1850s, Hess changed his ideological
direction and in 1862 published his Zionist vision in a book entitled
“Rome and Jerusalem: The Last Nationality Question”. Hess argued that
anti-Semitism would prevent the Jews from assimilating in Christian
society and, consequently, they needed to establish their own national
state in
Palestine.
At the time Hess
wrote his book, the Ottoman Empire was weak and on the verge of
disintegration. Western Imperialist powers were planning to jump on and
inherit the “Sick Man of Europe”. Accordingly, Hess felt that “the state
the Jews would establish in the heart of the Middle East would serve
Western imperial interests and at the same time help bring Western
civilization to the backward East”. (Benny Morris, “Righteous Victims: A
History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-1999”, New York, Alfred A.
Knopf, 1999, pp. 14-17)
Leo Pinsker, a
Jewish physician in Odessa, published a book in 1882, “Autoemancipation”,
urging his people to go and settle in Palestine as farmers and artisans.
He founded the society of Hovevei Zion (Hibbat Zion or Chibath Zion)
in order to facilitate emigration of Jews to Palestine.
Ahad Ha’am was
also one of the founding leaders of Hovevei Zion. He visited Palestine
in 1891 and called for the creation of a Jewish cultural center,
stressing that Palestine was not only a small land but also not an empty
land. He pointed out that there was little uncultivated or utilized
soil in
Palestine
other than some stony hills or sand dunes and warned that the Jewish
settlers should not provoke “the wrath of the natives by ugly actions”.
(Hans Kohn, Zion and the Jewish National Idea, from The
Menorah Journal, XLVI, Nos. 1 & 2, 1958, reproduced in Walid Khalidi.
Reproduced in Walid Khalidi, pp. 807-840)
Theodor Herzl
published his “Der Judenstaat” in 1896, which articulated the
political Zionist ideology and plans for colonizing
Palestine.
Herzl played a leading role in creating the institutional infrastructure
for the political Zionist movement by founding the Zionist Organization
in 1897. The ZO created a network of institutions in
Palestine
and all over the world for the purpose of creating a Jewish State in
Palestine and the surrounding region.
Herzl admitted
that the idea of a Jewish State implied transplantation of Jews from
wherever they lived to a new location. Such an idea, however, would
create economic and social disturbances. To avoid this situation and
secure the integrity of the idea, Herzl proposed “the creation of a body
corporate, or corporation. This corporation will be called The
Society of Jews. In addition to it there will b a Jewish Company,
an economically productive body”. (Theodor Herzl, The Jewish State:
An Attempt at a Modern Solution to the Jewish Question, London: H.
Pordes, Translated by Sylvie D'avigdor - 6th Edition, pp. 20-21)
To achieve the
idea [the Jewish State], The Society of Jews and the
Jewish Company had to proceed according to a master plan, which
Herzl laid down in his pamphlet. This plan was reflected in the Basle
Program that was adopted by the ZO in 1897.
For Herzl, the
plan was simple “Let the sovereignty be granted us over a portion of the
globe large enough to satisfy the rightful requirements of a nation; the
rest we shall manage for ourselves”. Herzl was ready to establish the
state anywhere. All he wanted was permission from the great powers
allowing the Jews to establish their state on a neutral piece of land.
“Should the Powers declare themselves willing to admit our sovereignty
over a neutral piece of land, then the Society [of Jews] will enter into
negotiations for the possession of this land”.
Herzel was fully
aware that the native people may be attached to their land and may
resist colonization of their country by foreigners. To avoid such a
situation, he opposed gradual Jewish infiltration (immigration) to the
chosen country. “An infiltration is bound to end badly. It continues
till the inevitable moment when the native population feels itself
threatened, and forces the Government to stop a further influx of Jews.
Immigration is consequently futile unless based on an assured
supremacy”. “Assured supremacy” was to be attained by dealing with the
rulers of the respective country with the
support of the
Great powers. Accordingly, “The Society of Jews will treat with the
present masters of the land, putting itself under the protectorate of
the European Powers, if they prove friendly to the plan”. To get the
approval of the present masters of the land, he proposed to “offer the
present possessors of the land enormous advantages, take upon ourselves
part of the public debt”.
The support of the
Great powers, on the other hand, could be obtained by offering “special
services” to them: “Supposing His Majesty the Sultan [Turkish Sultan]
were to give us Palestine, we could in return undertake to regulate the
whole finances of Turkey [Turkey at the time was in huge amount of
debt]. We should there form a portion of the rampart of Europe against
Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism. We should, as
a Neutral State, remain in contact with all Europe, which would have to
guarantee our existence. The sanctuaries of Christendom would be
safeguarded by assigning to them an extra-territorial status such as is
well known to the law of nations”. (Ibid, pp. 28-30)
Herzl’s Der
Judenstaat, however, almost died with him in 1904. What saved the
project were British plans during WWI for the destruction of the Ottoman
Empire and control of the Eastern parts of the Arab homeland, which
formed a land bridge between Egypt and India. France, on the other
hand, had similar objectives and was mainly interested in Syria,
including its Mount Lebanon coast. These designs were reflected in the
Sykes-Picot agreement that was signed on 16 May 1916 according to which
the whole
Fertile Crescent
was divided into British and French spheres of influence.
The British role
was significant in facilitating the Zionist project. Chaim Weizmann,
the architect of the Zionist-British relationship, got acquainted with
C. P. Scott, the editor of the Manchester Guardian. On 12
November 1914, Weizman wrote a letter to Scott stating, “…should
Palestine fall within the British sphere of influence, and should
Britain encourage a Jewish settlement there, as a British dependency, we
could have in twenty to thirty years a million Jews out there, perhaps
more. They would develop the country, bring back civilization to it and
form a very effective guard for the Suez Canal”.
According to
Weizmann, Herbert H. Asquith, then British Prime Minister, wrote the
following in his diary on January 28, 1915. “I received from Herbert
Samuel (who was later appointed as the first British High Commissioner
for Palestine) a memorandum headed ‘The Future of Palestine’. He goes
on to argue at considerable length and with some vehemence in favor of
the British annexation of Palestine… He thinks we might plant in this
not very promising territory about three or four million European Jews
and that this would have a good effect on those who are left behind… I
confess I am not attracted to this proposed addition to our
responsibilities…” Asquith later added, “Curiously enough, the only
other partisan of this proposal is Lloyd George. And I need not say he
does not care a damn for the Jews or their past or their future, but
thinks it will be an outrage to let the Holy Places pass into the
possession or under the protectorate of ‘agnostic and atheistic’
France”. (A detailed account of the Zionist activities and contacts
leading to the Balfour Declaration was given in: Chaim Weizmann,
Trial and Error, Chapters 7-18, pp. 93-208)
The Balfour
Declaration, promising support for a “Jewish National Home in
Palestine”, which was issued on 2 November 1917, resuscitated the
“Zionist Dream” and launched a state of cooperation between the World
Zionist Organization and the Imperialist powers. This close cooperation
was enhanced following WWII under U.S. patronage.
U.S. relationship
with the Zionist-Arab conflict started as early as WWI. Its position
began as a neutral power interested in the application of
self-determination to all ethnic groups as advocated by President
Woodrow Wilson. This relationship developed into supporting Britain in
its designs for control and hegemony in the
Middle East
as a result of the discovery of oil in the area. It was further
developed into supporting Zionist plans in
Palestine that
gradually enhanced into a strategic alliance between the U.S. and
Israel.
Palestine was not
an empty land waiting for the Zionists to build up their contemplated
state. Dispossessing Palestinian Arabs of their lands and driving them
out of their country provoked the inevitable reaction of a people
attached to their land. The Palestinians realized the implications of
the combined Zionist-Imperialist invasion and began a long and
unrelenting resistance against the colonial settlers and their
Imperialist supporters.