Part V
In a letter of February 19, 1919, to Prime Minister Lloyd George, historian Isaiah Friedman notes Balfour acknowledged Britain’s “weak position” with regard to the issue of self-determination for Palestine, but justified the policy because Palestine was “absolutely exceptional,” and considered the “question of the Jews outside Palestine as one of world importance.” The British also considered the Jews “to have an historic claim to a home in their ancient land; provided that home can be given them without either dispossessing or oppressing the present inhabitants.”
On July 30, 1919, Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour explained to Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen that it might appear difficult to reconcile Zionism with the principle of self-rule but suggested that “the creed of self-determination … could not be indiscriminately applied to the whole world, and Palestine was a case in point and a most exceptional one.” In any plebiscite on Palestine, the issue would be discussed with world Jewry. Balfour was convinced that “an overwhelming majority would declare for Zionism under a British Mandate.” Once the Arabs understood the British were determined that “Palestine be the National Home of the Jews … Arab opposition would therefore be futile and would not be tolerated.”
Historian Leonard Stein quotes Balfour in a speech in Parliament on November 17, 1919, making it clear that the Jews had the better claim to Palestine: “The four great powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land…”
Friedman quotes historian Arnold Toynbee, who argued that the principle of self-determination was not relevant in this case and also in Armenia, since there would be a mixed population with the Jews being one group that “for special reasons, will be entitled to a position more than mathematically proportionate to its numbers at the start.” For this and a number of other reasons, “the desires of inhabitants, or of the several sections of them, will have to some extent, to take second place.”
In addition to an indisputable historical claim to the land, historian Michael Makovsky notes that Churchill underscored the presence of Jews in Palestine before “the great hordes of Islam” invaded the area and “broke it all up, smashed it all up.” The hills that were once cultivated now languished under Arab rule and reverted back to a desert. For 1,200 years, Palestine remained a wasteland where Arabs “lived fairly easily in a flat squalor typical of pre-war Turkish Empire provinces.” For having failed to advance human civilization in the area, the Arabs had forfeited their right to rule the land.
He emphasized this point again in the House of Commons, Historian Martin Gilbert explains, after being criticized for granting Jewish engineer Pinhas Rutenberg the concession to harness the waters of the Jordan and Auja rivers for electrical power. His critics claimed that the Arab majority had the responsibility to produce economic prosperity in Palestine. He replied: “I am told that the Arabs would have done it themselves. Who is going to believe that? Left to themselves, the Arabs of Palestine would not in a thousand years have taken the effective steps towards the irrigation of and electrification of Palestine. They would have been quite content to dwell—a handful of philosophic people—in the wasted sun-scorched plains, letting the waters of the Jordan continue to flow unbridled and unharnessed into the Dead Sea.
Philip Graves, a correspondent for The London Times in the Middle East, who served in the British Army from 1915-1919, questioned whether the agreement with Rutenberg should have been made without putting it up for public bidding, but dismissed the notion that Arabs had the “capital and the brains for such an [ambitious] undertaking.” Had the Arabs “possessed ability of this sort,” he said, “they would long have been the independent masters of the Near East.” Without Jewish support “can the Arabs play any worthy part in the modern world?”
The British had the authority to determine the future of the region, Churchill asserted, for the British army had liberated the Arabs from the Turks. “The position of Great Britain in Palestine is one of trust, but it is also one of right,” Churchill said. “… Supreme sacrifices were made by all these soldiers in the British empire, who gave up their lives and blood.” Their graveyards were scattered throughout the land. More than 2,000 were buried in one graveyard on the road to Government House in Jerusalem.
Meinertzhagen adds that by the end of the Second World War, all of Asia and Europe, including Britain, had sacrificed considerably, while the Arabs had not. During both World Wars, the Arabs had “gained everything and contributed nothing…” “Why,” he asked, “should not the Arabs give up something to suffering humanity? Palestine is but a small part of the Arab countries. On the other hand, the Jews have contributed a great deal during both wars and have suffered more than any other nation. It is gross injustice that they should be refused a home which once was theirs. This simple act of justice is held up for fear of the Arabs and hatred of the Jews. A policy of fear leads nowhere; it is no policy.” [By the end of August 1944, there were 25,825 Jewish volunteers from Palestine in the British defense forces, including 4,000 women, while there were only 9,200 Arabs.]
To those who suggested that Jews immigrate to countries other than Palestine, Churchill responded: “Zionism without Zion is nothing at all. The Jews want a Home, not an Apartment.”
Dr. Alex Grobman, a Hebrew University-trained historian, is senior resident scholar at the John C. Danforth Society and a member of the Council of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East.
