It is easy to forget that the concept of bi-nationalism, a union of Israelis and Palestinians in a single state, is not very new. It was considered, and generally rejected, well before the Second World War.
By the mid-1920's there were groups in the British Palestine calling for a single unified state, under British rule, for both Arabs and Jews. Arguably the concept had its roots in the Czech lands under the Hapsburgs -- there three groups, Czech, German and Jew shared on state but were distinct from each other in culture and nationality.
So, "Brit Shalom" sought a peaceful coexistence between Arabs and Jews, to be achieved by the Jewish renunciation of the Balfour Declaration. Brit Shalom (also called the Jewish-Palestinian Peace Alliance) was founded in 1925 and never exceeded a membership of 100.
Brit Shalom supporters and founders include Arthur Ruppin, Martin Buber, Hugo Bergmann, Gershom Scholem and Henrietta Szold; others, such as Albert Einstein also voiced their support.
Most Palestinian Jews and Arabs rejected this proposed solution, and the movement became a marginal, temporal element in the politics of the region. With the departure of the British the issue of bi-nationalism was decided by war. The large Jewish communities in Arab states were relocated in bulk to Israel and many Palestinians fled the fighting to Egypt and Transjordan (well, fled to what became a part of Transjordan, later Jordan. After capturing the 'West Bank' area of Cisjordan during the 1948–49 war with Israel, Transjordan became Jordan and in 1950 Jordan annexed the West Bank, only to lose it to Israel later.)
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
1 comment:
> Most Palestinian Jews and Arabs rejected this proposed solution, and the movement became a marginal, temporal element in the politics of the region. With the departure of the British the issue of bi-nationalism was decided by war. The large Jewish communities in Arab states were relocated in bulk to Israel and many Palestinians fled the fighting to Egypt and Transjordan (well, fled to what became a part of Transjordan, later Jordan. After capturing the 'West Bank' area of Cisjordan during the 1948–49 war with Israel, Transjordan became Jordan and in 1950 Jordan annexed the West Bank, only to lose it to Israel later.)
This is a *very* partisan representation of a certain bit of history.
I would certainly not compare the Jewish community which "relocated" (and hardly "were relocated") with the Palestinians who "fled". The former group gained a country; the latter, in fear for their lives, lost everything they had, and have never been allowed to return to their homes.
Additionally, despite what is suggested by "the 1948–49 war with Israel", the West bank was not, under any prior treaty, proposqal or settlement, a part of Israel, and was therefore not, as implied by the text, captured from Israel. So, again, an implied quid pro quo is more fiction than fact.
Lawyers are skilled in the artful use of language to suggest meaning without fact. It is a skill they ought to practise less often.
Post a Comment