“It is impossible to make a national home for one people in a country inhabited by another, except by dislodging the latter.”
The Nakba, the Arabic word for “the catastrophe,” refers to the systemic ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs from their homeland, beginning in May 1948, that provided the blood-soaked foundations on which “Israel” was created. In 1946, two years before the Nakba, Lebanese author and political activist Edward Atilyah anticipated the Nakba’s long-term consequences.
In an essay titled “The Palestine Question: Background and Solution,” published in the journal India Quarterly (and reprinted in T. Ras Makonnen’s Pan-Africa: A Monthly Journal of African Life, History and Thought), Atilyah argued that zionist demands for territory in Palestine, and British and US imperialist concessions to zionism, could only lead to disaster for the Palestinian Arabs. “It is impossible,’ Atliyah wrote, “to make a national home for one people in a country inhabited by another, except by dislodging the latter.”
Atliyah words have come to pass over the eighty years since he wrote. Meanwhile, his astute observations on two of the misconceptions of the “Palestine Problem” have been enshrined in zionist mythology: first, that the Arab opposition to the founding of a Jewish state on Palestinian territory was based on antisemitism, and second, that the Palestine Problem itself emerges out of historic, internal conflicts among the Arabs—rather than being a recent problem created from British imperialism and zionism itself. (Indeed, we could say that Palestine has a zionism problem.)
Atilyah argued that the solution to the Palestine Problem was through the recognition of the rights, culture, and history of the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine, the curtailing of immigration, the foundation of representative government, and the acknowledgement that Palestine was part of the Arab world. Again, Atilyah is writing in 1946. Two years later, the Nakba began. Eight decades later the Palestinian people are still fighting for their rights, while their ethnic cleansing and genocide continues.
We reprint Edward Atiyah’s “The Palestine Question: Background and Solution” below.
The Palestine Question: Background and Solution
Edward Atiyah
There are two prevalent misconceptions about the Palestine problem, which it is essential to clear up at the beginning of any discussion of it, for until this is done it is impossible to understand the real issues involved.
The first of these two misconceptions is that the Arab opposition to Zionism in Palestine is a manifestation of anti-Semitism, and springs from racial hostility to the Jews. This is not the case at all. The Arabs' opposition to Zionism is a political opposition to a political threat and has nothing to do with racial feeling. It would have arisen whatever the race and nationality of the Zionists might have been, and it would have been just as determined and persistent. It is to the intentions of the Zionists and the manner in which they have come into the country that the Arabs object, not to the fact that they are
Jews. Indeed the Arab world had been singularly free from anti-Semitism until the advent of political Zionism. Jewish communities had been living in all the Arab countries for centuries before 1917 as a normal part of the population, completely Arabized and differing from the Moslem and Christian Arabs only in that they belonged to a different religion. There had been no conflict between them and the rest of the population. They, for their part, had no political ambitions and did not claim a separate national status, while the Moslem majority treated them with tolerance and accepted them as a natural element in the native population. Often indeed when the Jews had been persecuted and massacred in Europe, they had found sanctuary in the Middle East.
The second misconception about the Palestine problem is that it is a conflict between two sections of the native population inherent in the structure of the country and resulting from internal conditions and natural evolution. Again this is not true. The Palestine problem is not a natural and chronic one, but a new, artificial and imported problem. Thirty years ago it did not exist. It was created by the British Government in 1917. Until that time Palestine was an entirely Arab country, an integral part of the Arab world. It was indeed merely the southern part of Syria and had never constituted a separate political entity. Its population was indistinguishable from their Arab kinsmen in the north or in any other part of the Arab world. A small Jewish community lived in it, like the Jewish communities that lived in the other parts of the Arab world, but its presence did not constitute a political problem since there was no national conflict between it and the Arab population. By far the greater part of this small Jewish community consisted of indigenous, long established and completely Arabized Jews. Only about ten thousand were recent immigrants from various parts of Europe, but even they did not constitute a political problem because they had come into the country as individuals and with no political ambitions or any idea of claiming a special national status. Altogether there were less than 50,000 Jews in Palestine at that time as against 600,000 Arabs. Nor was it indeed in respect of numbers only, that Palestine was definitely an Arab country and nothing else before 1917. Its whole character and complexion, its language and customs were entirely Arab and had been so for centuries.
For centuries the Arab countries had been under Ottoman rule, but even in that state had preserved their identity as Arab lands and secured a share in the Ottoman Empire as equal partners with the Turks. Despite this, however, the Arabs became dissatisfied with their position in the Ottoman Empire and a liberation movement started among them towards the end of the 19th century aiming at complete independence. When the 1914 war broke out, the leaders of the Arab movement saw in it their chance of liberation from Turkey. At the same time Britain was anxious to secure the armed assistance of the Arabs against the Turkish and German forces in the Middle East, and so an agreement was concluded in 1916 between Hussein, Emir of Mecca and later King of the Hejaz, representing the Arab movement and Sir Henry McMohan, the British High Commissioner for Egypt at that time, representing the British Government, whereby in return for active participation in the war against Turkey, Britain promised to recognize Arab independence in all that part of the Arab world which was still under Ottoman rule, i.e., the eastern part of the Arab world lying beyond the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. Two reservations were made by Britain when entering into this pledge, both clearly referring to the northern coastal district of Syria, i.e., the Lebanon, and having no bearing whatever on Palestine; and it was certainly in this sense that the Arabs understood them. Thus, the natural rights of the Arabs to Palestine as their country was confirmed by the British Government in a solemn and binding agreement as a result of which the Arabs revolted against Turkey and made a notable contribution to the Allied victory in 1918.
While, however, the Arabs were fighting side by side with the British in 1917, the British Government issued the Balfour Declaration by which it made certain promises to the Jews, which were entirely incompatible with both the rights of the Arabs in Palestine and the terms of the agreement which Britain had concluded with the Arabs only the year before. By this document, the British Government declared that they “view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” and stated that they would “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 or religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”
The Balfour Declaration was issued as a result of the activities in Britain and America of the leaders of the Zionist movement. This movement had grown up among a section of world-Jewry in the few previous decades and aimed at the recreation of the Jewish nation in Palestine by immigration and the eventual establishment of a Jewish national State. Thus the Zionist movement was in its very essence and by the inevitable implication of its intentions an act of aggression against the Arabs as the native people of Palestine. For as George Antonius, the historian of the Arab movement has aptly put it in his book The Arab Awakening, it is impossible to make a national home for one people in a country inhabited by another, except by dislodging the latter. The Zionists base their claim to Palestine on the fact that their ancestors occupied a part of the country 2,000 years ago and this fantastic argument was made the basis of the Balfour Declaration.
The motives that prompted the British Government to issue this Declaration were many and various, but the most cogent among them were the following:-
(a) Britain and the Allies were extremely anxious in that crucial year of World War I (1917) to win over to the Allied side the Jews of Germany and Central Europe.
(b) The British Government was about to float a loan in America for the prosecution of the War and desired to enlist the support of certain Jewish American financiers who were interested in the Zionist movement.
(c) The British Government believed that the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish commonwealth dependent on Great Britain would be a useful political and strategic asset to the British Empire.
The Arabs were alarmed and shocked when they heard of the Balfour Declaration, which had been issued without any previous consultation with them and even without their knowledge. They asked for an explanation of its meaning and were given not one, but several assurances by the British Government that Jewish settlement in Palestine would only be allowed so far as it did not interfere with the economic and political freedom of the Arabs. Soon, however, it became evident that what was intended was something quite different. Under the same influences that had procured its issue in the first instance by the British Government, the Balfour Declaration was incorporated in the mandate which Britain, by arrangement with the Allies, secured for Palestine.
Without any justification, save the arbitrary decision of the British and American Governments to recognize the Jewish claim to Palestine on the basis of their remote historical connexion with that country, Palestine was severed from Syria and a special Mandate devised for it, differing in terms from the Mandates for Syria, Lebanon and Iraq and fundamentally contravening the terms of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. All Mandates derive their authority from Article 22 of the Covenant of the League. Regarding the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire, Article 22 contained the following provision "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.” According to this solemn pronouncement, Palestine was, without any shadow of doubt, entitled to its independence. Its people were one of the communities to which this paragraph referred, but under Zionist influence Palestine was precluded from its application. Its independence was not recognized, as was the independence of Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, and something entirely foreign to the needs and interests of its people was introduced into the Mandate framed for it, namely the establishment in it of a national home for the Jewish people.
Curiously enough, the first of the many commissions that have been appointed in the course of the last quarter of a century to inquire into the Palestine problem was a purely American body. This was the famous King-Crane Commission appointed by President Wilson in 1919 which went to Syria and Palestine to examine conditions on the spot and ascertain the wishes of the Arab population. It was the only attempt made by any of the Allies to apply the mandatory system in an honest manner and the result of its investigations was a clear and emphatic verdict against Zionism. The Commissioners dismissed the argument that the historical connection of the Jews with Palestine gave them the right to return to it against the wishes of its present population as “'something that cannot be taken seriously.” They gave it as their considered opinion that any attempt to carry out the Zionist programme would constitute an act of grave injustice against the Arabs, and would require the use of force on a large scale. Despite this warning, however, the British Government with the passive acquiescence of the League of Nations embarked on its long and disastrous attempt to help the Zionists carry out their programme in Palestine.
This programme, stripped of all camouflage, is nothing but a brutal attempt to take away Palestine from its native inhabitants and convert it into a Jewish national State. The attempt has been, and is being made, not by the local Jews of the country, but by Jewish immigrants coming mainly from central and eastern Europe. The Zionists have two main objects. The first is to go on bringing Jewish immigrants into Palestine until they become the majority in the country. The second is to acquire and colonize as much of the cultivable land of the country as they possibly can. The first object they have so far achieved through the agency of the Mandatory Power, that is to say by putting pressure on Britain to allow more and more immigrants to come in. The second object they have sought to achieve, and have in fact achieved to a considerable extent by tempting absentee landlords and debt-burdened peasants to part with their land for fabulous prices which the contributions of Jews in the different parts of the world make it possible for the Zionists to offer.
The Arabs are thus threatened with two great dangers : (a) their eventual reduction to a minority in their own country and (b) the loss of their land with the attendant creation of a class of landless peasants driven into the towns to swell the ranks of the proletariat.
From this analysis, it will be seen that the conflict in Palestine is not between two sections of the native population with equal rights to the country, but between the native people of the country defending their natural rights and a body of immigrants invading it with the set purpose of making it their own.
This struggle has now lasted for nearly a quarter of a century during which something like half a million Jews have been brought into the country in defiance of Arab wishes and against every form of Arab resistance. An acute national problem and a bitter form of national hatred have been created deliberately and artificially in a country which was free from any such before. An alien national community has been forcibly injected into a region which is otherwise a homogeneous Arab bloc. A new contest between east and west has been set up in a region which was the scene of similar wasteful struggles in past centuries, but which had been free from them since the Crusades. For 26 years Palestine has been rent by this conflict and will continue to be so as long as the Zionists persist in their attempt and continue to receive support from Britain and America.
This being the history of the problem and the position it has led to, what is the solution? The Zionists as we have seen demand the continuance of Jewish immigration and the setting up ultimately of a Jewish national State in the whole of Palestine. They realize, however, that they cannot achieve this until they become the majority in the whole country and so, for the time being, they are prepared to accept partition, i.e., the establishment of a Jewish national State in a part of Palestine, as a first step towards their ultimate goal. The British Government for their part have put forward a scheme which, while not conceding the Jewish demand for a national State, provides for something which might eventually lead to partition and a Jewish State. According to this scheme, the country is to be divided into two autonomous provinces, one Arab, one Jewish, and a central Federal Government is to be set up in which both the Arabs and Jews will be represented, but all real power will be in the hands of the Mandatory authorities, i.e., the British. As for immigration, the scheme provides for its continuance in the Jewish province.
The Arabs reject all these alternatives, both on grounds of principle and in detail. Continued immigration means for the Arabs a permanent threat that they will one day become a minority in their own country and alien subjects in a Jewish national State-an outcome which every Arab feels would be an outrage on the most elementary rights of the native people of Palestine and a serious menace to the stability of the Middle East. But the objection of the Arabs to a Jewish national State being set up in the whole of Palestine applies equally in principle to the idea of a Jewish State being set up in a part of the country, and indeed to any scheme such as the present British plan which aims at a division of the country and the granting to the Jews of a special national status in it, whether such national status is to be that of complete sovereignty, or something short of it. The grounds on which the Arabs base this objection are first, that the Zionists have no right to any such status or territorial rights in the country; second, that the granting of such a status would prevent the development of the country as a unitary State and would therefore involve not only grave economic disadvantages, but also political perils; third, the fact that Zionism is an expansive aggressive movement which will not and cannot be satisfied with a part of the country nor with a qualified status falling short of sovereignty but which would use any such concessions as stepping stones towards its ultimate objective.
In the Arab view, the root cause of all the trouble has been all along the Zionists' confidence that they can obtain what they want in Palestine through British and American help, regardless of the Arabs' wishes. The first step, therefore, towards a solution is that Britain and America should desist from coercing the Arabs into accepting concessions which are fundamentally unjust merely in order to placate Jewish opinion.
Again, in the Arab view, no solution for the problem created by this Jewish incursion into Palestine can be either just or workable unless it satisfies the following conditions :-
1. It must recognize the right of the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine to continue in occupation of the country and to preserve its traditional character.
2. It must recognize that such questions as immigration which affect the whole nature and destiny of the country should be decided in accordance with democratic principles by the will of the population.
3. It must accept the principle that the only way by which the will of the population can be expressed is through the establishment of responsible representative government, based on the principle of absolute equality of all citizens irrespective of race and religion.
4. It must recognize the fact that by geography and history Palestine is inescapably part of the Arab world; that the only alternative to its being part of the Arab world and accepting the implications of its position is complete isolation, which would be disastrous from every point of view.
In accordance with these principles the Arabs urge the establishment in Palestine of a democratic government representative of all sections of the population on a footing of equality, the termination of the Mandate once the Government has been established, and the entry of Palestine into the Arab League and the United Nations Organization as a full member of the world community.
Pending the establishment of a representative Government, all further Jewish immigration should be stopped in pursuance of the principle that a decision on so important a matter should only be taken with the consent of the inhabitants of the country and that until representative institutions are established, there is no way of determining consent.
This is the only solution in the Arab view. Apart from being the only just and natural solution, it is the only one which offers any reasonable hope of future co-operation and stability in the country and the only one which would not bring into being dangerous complications and sow the seeds of future conflict. On a long-range view of things, it is impossible for a Jewish community, however large and well-organized, to maintain itself in Palestine and develop its potentialities, if it is going to act in defiance of, and live in perpetual conflict with, the Arabs. The Palestine Arabs are not an isolated community. They belong to a nation of some 40 or 5o million people inhabiting all the countries around them. There can be no future for the Jews of Palestine if they permanently antagonize this large and developing Arab nation in whose midst they have gone to live. A small Jewish State or province created in defiance of Arab wishes and surrounded by a ring of hostile Arab States would be not only in a very insecure position itself but also a cause of dangerous tension and possibly conflict. The only hope for the
Jews in Palestine lies in securing the goodwill of the Arabs and being willing to co-operate with them on a reasonable basis, and the only reasonable basis is that of a democratic unitary State in which the Arabs will remain the majority.
Edward Atiyah, “The Palestine Question: Background and Solution,” India Quarterly, 2 No. 4 (October-December 1946), pages 340-346.
A newly uncovered police bulletin warns that white supremacists may interpret ICE social media content as a call to violence.
The real story behind the so-called murder charge against former Cuban President Raúl Castro.
In this week’s segment, we discuss the issue of deed theft, the loss of property by fraudulent means, which disproportionately impacts Black communities. But we begin with a conversation about Congo…
Maurice Carney, Executive Director of Friends of the Congo, joins Black Agenda Report to discuss the latest outbreak of Ebola Virus Disease and explains what it tells us about conditions in that…
Leah Goodridge, a New York City-based attorney, housing advocate, and writer, is a member of the City Planning Commission. She joins Black Agenda Report from New York to discuss deed theft and…
