This is completely revisionist history.
Interesting tactic: when somebody raises a point you don’t want to deal with, ignore the substance and pull out the “revisionist” brand. Well, paste that label on your mirror and give it a good hard look, because someone’s being revisionist here, and that someone isn’t me.
I said that the aim of Zionism was the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish State. I didn’t think that obvious truth was even open to question, but apparently I was wrong, because you came along, accused me of revisionism, and declared that the real aim of Zionism was:
to establish a Jewish majority peacefully, and to improve living conditions for everybody.
That’s bullshit. I apologize to those who might be offended by the term, and if our host wants to punish me for using it I will cheerfully submit to whatever he contrives, but I honestly can’t think of another word for it.
Let’s look at some verifiable facts. In 1896 Theodore Herzl published a pamphlet, the release of which is still regarded as the formal launching of Zionism. What was the name of that pamphlet? Was it “Establish a Jewish Majority Peacefully, for the Benefit of All”? No, it wasn’t. It was – and you know it as well as I do – “Der Judenstadt”: “The Jewish State”. In that pamphlet Herzl wrote things like “The Jewish State is essential to the world. It will therefore be created”, and “”Let sovereignty be granted to us over a portion of the globe large enough to satisfy the rightful requirements of a nation…”.
Find a copy, read it, and then come back here and tell me with a straight face that the goal of Zionism was anything short of Jewish sovereignty over a Jewish State.
What did Herzl write in his diary after the first Zionist Congress at Basle? Did he write “I have laid the groundwork for peaceful establishment of a Jewish majority for the betterment of all”? No, he didn’t. He wrote “at Basle I founded the Jewish State”.
And then of course there was Chaim Weizman’s justly famous comment:
“…we desire to create in Palestine such conditions, political, economic, and administrative, that as the country is developed, we can pour in a considerable number of immigrants, and finally establish such a society in Palestine that Palestine shall be as Jewish as England is English, or America is American.”
Now you can tell me, if you will, that Weizman didn’t really mean that, and that what he was really trying to say was that the Zionists wanted to peacefully achieve a majority and achieve better living conditions for all, but I don’t think that’s likely. I think he meant exactly what he said.
This turned out to be illusory, both because of Arab politics and Arab immigration… the onus for violence should belong on those who reject all compromise and start the violence, and that was the Arabs.
Of course the Arabs resisted. What would you expect them to do? Lay down the red carpet? If a group of foreigners showed up in your neighborhood, bought some rental units, evicted the long-term tenants and loudly proclaimed their intention take over the entire area, and make it theirs, to be run by them according to their own culture and their own rules, wouldn’t you resist? Of course the people doing the resisting were uneducated, disorganized, and unsophisticated, so the resistance was violent and chaotic. What else would you expect?
The Haycraft Commission, formed by the British government to investigate the first large-scale outbreak of Jewish-Arab violence, the riots of 1921, reached some interesting conclusions. Among them – I’ve quoted this before here, but it seems to have been forgotten – was this:
“It is important that it should be realized that what is written on the subject of Zionism by Zionists and their sympathizers in Europe is read and discussed by Palestinian Arabs, not only in the towns but in the country districts”
There followed a long list of writings that the Commission found provocative, most of which were quite open in their demand for Jewish sovereignty. Later in the same document…
“Until the Commission came to examine Dr. Eder, acting Chairman of the Zionist Commission, they were unaware to what extent such expressions of opinion as those we have quoted above were authorized by responsible Zionists… in his opinion there can be only one national home in Palestine, and that a Jewish one, and no equality in the partnership between Jews and Arabs, but a Jewish predominance as soon as the numbers of that race are sufficiently increased… he was quite clear that the Jews should, and the Arabs should not, have the right to bear arms….”
How would you expect the local population to react to such sentiments? With open arms?
The Zionist aim, openly stated since the beginning of the Zionist movement, was to introduce as many Jewish immigrants as possible to Palestine and establish a Jewish State there. The non-Jewish population of Palestine found this intention unacceptable, and resisted. Since the resistance was a reaction to immigration and to the stated goal of Jewish political supremacy, I find it very difficult to place the “onus for violence” purely on the Arabs. The eyewitness accounts I’ve read – and there are quite a number of them – suggest that the Zionists were not exactly angels themselves. Accounts of aggressive and confrontational behaviour by Jewish immigrants are not hard to find.
I am so tired of these elite European arguments that retrofit the name "colonialism" on Zionism, ignoring all particulars of the case, and thereby get to put all the blame on the Jews, the "colonized" being pure victims by definition.
A European population moves into a non-European area with the express intention of achieving sovereignty and political dominion over that area, without consideration for the desires and interests of the native population. What do you want to call it? A friendly visit?
If the goal of Zionism was a Jewish State in Palestine, and that goal was not negotiable, violent conflict with the native population was unavoidable. I believe that the Zionist goal was exclusive Jewish sovereignty over a Jewish State, that the Zionist leaders never seriously considered abandoning or compromising that goal, and that violent confrontation with the native population was therefore inevitable once the Zionist program was put into effect. Please note that there is no mention of “fault” or “blame” in that statement, merely an attempt to trace back a chain of causes and effects.
If you want to argue with that proposition, go ahead, but drop the snide remarks about “revisionism” and “elite European arguments” and cite some evidence. If you want to get me – or anybody else – to accept the notion that the Zionist goal was not a Jewish State, but “to establish a Jewish majority peacefully, and to improve living conditions for everybody”, you’ll have a fair bit of work cut out for you. If you want to demonstrate that the goal of a Jewish State was compatible with peace, you’ll have even more. |
