Why Did the Arabs Fail to
Prevent the Establishment of Israel?
by Dawn Hunt
In order
to address the question of why the Arabs failed to prevent the establishment of
Israel, particularly before 1948, I will examine
the key components that contributed to the sequence of historical events, which
led to the triumph of Israel and the tragedy of the
Palestinian Arabs.
The main
contributing components are: Zionism; the struggle among the European powers to
gain territory and control in the Middle East; as well as the crumbling of the
Ottoman
Empire;
all of which happened simultaneously, instigating phenomenal consequences that
would change the course of history and the Middle East.
Zionism
Upon
discussing Zionism as one of the key factors that contributed to the
establishment of a Jewish state, it is necessary to give an overview of how
Zionism came about. According to Charles D. Smith, Zionism took its origins from
the nationalism that was escalating in Europe in the late 19th century. Jews were perhaps disillusioned with the rise
of nationalism as well as anti-Semitism in Europe.
(Smith,
33 and 35)
As
outlined later in this essay, there had always been a prominent Jewish presence
in Palestine, although they were not the only ethnic
division of peoples in the area. As persecution of the Jews increased in Europe, so too did the quest for the
Jews to have their own nation-state.
Smith
points out that the basis of the Zionist movement was for the Jews to lay claim
to an ancient Israel; they believed the land now
known as Palestine was rightfully theirs as a gift from God.
Later,
while Zionism was quickly gaining momentum and more and more Jews were
gravitating to Palestine, Theodore Herzl
emerged as a leading advocate for Zionism and took the path of diplomacy with
European leaders. (Smith, 32 and 38)
By the
start of the First World War, as Charles Smith points out, Jews already owned
significant areas of land. In fact, as Benny
Morris outlines it, the very seizure of land for Jewish inhabitancy was a
fundamental Zionist principle. (Smith, 41 and Morris, 38)
Another
key Zionist figure was Chaim Weizmann. After World War I, he pressured the British
to implement the Balfour Declaration. He
was more direct in his demands than Herzl. He sought to convince the British that they
would benefit from a Jewish state in Palestine to retain their colonial
interests. Ahron Bregman
points out that Weizmann was the head of the
World Zionist Delegation and went on to become Israel’s first president. (Bregman, 19)
After
the First World War, the Zionist movement seemed to gain momentum. There were many pro-Zionists in the British
administration, as well as in France, the U.S. and later in the Soviet Union.
In the
meantime, there was wave after wave of Jewish immigrants to Palestine.
The Zionists were extremely resourceful in setting up settlements and
communal organisations. In 1921, they
set up a national assembly in Jerusalem, as pointed out in Bregman’s text. These early manoeuvres of setting up and establishing
themselves regardless, or in spite of, the British higher authority or even the
Palestinian Arabs themselves, meant that the Jews presented a new threat to the
Palestinians. (Bregman, 21)
As
Charles Smith and several others have cited, in November 1917 the Balfour
Declaration was signed, thus securing a national home for the Jews in Palestine under the direct supervision of
the British. This was the prompt needed for Jews all over Europe, and
especially in Russia where persecution was the most intense, to gravitate to
Palestine in their thousands, in the years leading up to the establishment of
the state of Israel.
This
mass migration of Jews only served to infuriate the Arab inhabitants, whom the
Jews tended to look down upon. The
Zionist Jews saw the Palestinian Arabs as primitive, uncultured peasants who
should assume a subordinate role. This statement, of course, was a sweeping
generalisation but became more evident with growing Zionist sentiment. (Smith,
71)
The
Superpowers
To
further highlight why the Arabs failed to prevent the birth of Israel, and the odds stacked against
the Arabs of Palestine, it is crucial to give some background information on
the activities of the great powers of Europe, in the run up to the humiliating defeat of
the Arabs.
Until
its encroachment by European powers, Palestine had been under Ottoman rule for
a long period of relative stability.
According to Charles Smith, Jews, Christians and Muslims all lived side
by side in this sought-after holy place. By the late 18th century,
the French already had colonial interests in Lebanon and Russia in Constantinople.
Germany too had its sights on Middle Eastern
territory, yet failed to secure the same kind of colonial status as the British
and French. At that time, despite
various weak spots, most Middle Eastern territory was under Ottoman rule. (Smith, 23)
In 19th
century Europe, many ideals were born and
experimented with. One of the most
prominent of these ideals was nationalism.
Nationalism being very much a European concept at that time, it in turn
sparked the ideal of Zionism.
As a result
of mounting antagonisms and power struggles in Europe, the situation exploded into the
First World War, a war which was being fought between two rival camps; the entente
powers of Britain, France and Russia, up against the triple alliance
of Germany, Austria/Hungary and, for a short time, Italy.
At the
same time, the Ottoman Empire was carved up between France and Britain.
As the Ottoman Empire began to crumble, Britain walked a fine line between pursuing
its interests and recognising what the French wanted in terms of territory.
As Smith
points out, Britain seized on Egypt, as a protectorate, Cyprus, Transjordan and most notably, Iraq and Palestine as special hegemonic zones.
Also, in another bid to further its interests, Britain pressed hard for the support of
the entente allies, in exchange for support for the Zionists and a Jewish
national home. (Smith, 60-61 and 71)
The
French had already signalled their support for Britain to back Zionism. So, at this stage, the Jews had in their
favour a few strong European powers, the Balfour Declaration and capital which
the immigrants were able to access on their arrival from Europe.
The Arab Palestinians, on the other hand, had simply been loyal to the Ottoman Empire and lived modestly off the land.
The culture and customs brought with the European Jews, in wave upon wave of
immigration, were strange and threatening to the Arabs.
Again,
as Smith thoughtfully points out, orthodox Jews and Palestinian Arabs had lived
side by side for centuries, despite sporadic conflicts and wars with Christian
crusaders and other ethnic divisions and they came to tolerate one another
under Ottoman rule. However, the
Zionists were a new and much more aggressive breed of Jew,
one which the Palestinians feared would buy up large chunks of their land and ultimately
come to dominate, in their unrelenting will to make Palestine their own.
These
fears would come true in the inter-war years.
(Smith, 34)
The immense
wave of sympathy for the Jews, following the Holocaust and its catastrophic
fallout, cannot go unmentioned. The new
centre for Zionism was the United States, which had just emerged as a
super-power following World War II. As
highlighted in William Cleveland’s writings, a new campaign for Zionism emerged
in the form of the Biltmore project. American Jews were urged to immigrate to Palestine, taking with them of course
their money, western culture and Zionist aspirations. Most significantly, President Harry Truman
threw his support behind the Zionist movement, giving it further resources and
powerful reinforcement. (Cleveland, 261)
Arab
Response and Revolt
During
the inter-war years, and after the British mandate over Palestine in 1920, the Palestinian Arabs witnessed
the determined and steady unfolding of a Jewish state. The British mandate accommodated the Balfour
Declaration, which automatically swayed support for the Zionist cause and a
home for the Jews in Palestine.
As cited
in Albert Hourani’s text, by 1922 the League of Nations acknowledged both the British
and French territories, which either came under direct rule or hegemony. The British had retained its access to the Suez Canal, and thus needed to maintain
good relations with the Arabs. In light of this, they could only go so far in
satisfying the demands of the Zionists. For example, as cited by Charles Smith,
the British rejected a proposal by Lord Rothschild, who wanted to strike an
agreement to: “reconstitute the state of Palestine into Israel, rather than reconstitute Israel, in Palestine…” (Hourani, 318) (Smith,
74)
By the
end of the 1920s Arab frustrations were being felt. Violence against Jews was commonplace, often
resulting in counter-attacks. The Arabs and Jews fought over everything from
sacred shrines to land rights, even though Palestinian Arabs had been willingly
selling land to Jews and outsiders for years. Perhaps they were realizing, too
late for their own good, that they were selling themselves out. There was also
increasing anger at the speed at which Jews were coming from Europe and Russia, often entering Palestine illegally and bumping up the
populations in the cities at an alarming rate.
Britain, in several white papers and commissioned
enquiries, made significant efforts to restrict the flow of Jewish immigrants. For
example, as outlined by Cleveland, the Shaw Commission recognised
that the British authority needed to do more to protect the rights of Arabs,
their land and their community. This commission was followed by the Passfield White Paper, which placed new restrictions on Jewish
immigrants in light of a sharp rise in Arab discontent. However, the Arabs referred
to the Passfield paper as the Black Letter because,
due to pressure from Weizmann to have the paper
withdrawn, the British backed down. (Cleveland, 257-258)
This
would only reinforce the Arab feeling that the British and other European
powers were supporting the Zionists and the creation of a home for the Jews, as
a vehicle to hold onto colonial territories in the Middle East; thus, not considering the
interests or well-being of the Palestinians.
In the
build up to the Arab revolt, the Palestinians seemed to have substantially
fewer resources and organisation than the Jews, who were thorough in their settlement
of the land. However, in 1936, albeit sporadic and spontaneous, the Palestinian
Arabs staged a revolt. It was a revolt against British imperialism and Zionism.
Tom
Bowden asserts that the revolt was in some respects seen as a small-scale,
disorganised peasant war. Although the
Boycott Committee was set up and the Mufti rebel force, there was too much
rivalry between the two feuding families in Palestine to create a level of continuity. (Bowden, 147-148)
Bowden
stresses that the Arab Palestinians were militarily under-developed. Although, according to Hourani,
the revolt was felt throughout other Arab states. With Palestinian security and
governmental bodies in disarray, the British were forced to eventually crush the
revolt. (Bowden, 148 and 161) (Hourani, 332)
As a result of the Arab revolt, in 1939 Britain issued the Peel Commission. As cited by Hourani,
it proposed the
partitioning of Palestine into two separate states. However, this was
met with opposition on both sides and was abandoned. In yet a further attempt
to balance the conflicting interests, Britain issued a white paper that same
year, limiting both the number of Jewish settlements and immigrants to Palestine.
This in turn infuriated the Jews who, just before the end of the Second
World War, staged their own revolt against the British. (Hourani, 332)
The
revolt was explosive and decisive; escalating into a crisis that would cause
the British foreign secretary in 1947 to refer the situation to the UN. Throwing
up its hands in exasperation, the British finally ended the Mandate in Palestine, following a unanimous UN
special committee decision. It
recommended that Palestine be divided into two separate states, thus
granting the Jews their long-standing dream: the birth of the state of Israel. (Bregman,
38) (Cleveland, 263-264)
Conclusion
In
answer to the question of why the Arabs failed to prevent the creation of Israel before 1948, I will briefly
conclude by pointing out the afore-mentioned factors.
From the
start of the Zionist movement, it was evident that this would only spell out a
future challenge to the Palestinian Arabs.
The Jews of course, having strong leaders of Zionism on their side, such
as Herzl and Weizmann, were
unstoppable in their cause.
The
other unfortunate thing for the Arabs was that they had no super-power to back
them up or give them a clear voice over the European power struggle. Unfortunately, for them, the Arab League was
too little too late in representing the Palestinians, just before the British
pulled out. Also, given that the British
had been a buffer between Palestinians and Jews for twenty-eight years, their suddenly
leaving the situation to fend for itself would
inevitably place the power in the hands of the Jews. It is a shame that real
Arab solidarity did not mushroom until later, in the wake of independence for
other Arab states. Predictably, the war that erupted between the Palestinians
and Jews, immediately on the departure of the British, saw the tragic defeat of
the Arabs as Israel was born and the Zionist dream
was sealed.
Click here to return to
Dawn’s Rants