The Course of History
By Dan Lieberman

Ben Heine / MWC NEWS

The Middle East crisis, originally a struggle between native Palestinians and early Zionists for control of a land, has grown into a battle between Israel and the Arab world.

A solution to the conflict has defied resolution – and for good reason – the imposition of artificial factors after World War I contradicted a course of history that predicted the Palestinians would control their destiny and form a nation in lands they had owned and occupied for centuries. This contradicted previous shaping of the Middle East which always coursed into a return of lands to native inhabitants.

The Shaping of the Middle East

Assyrian, Babylonian, Phoenician and Persian empires shaped the early Middle East and started its history. Foreign invaders – Greeks, Romans and Mongols - were eventually displaced by native movements. Indigenous Arabs ruled for centuries until being finally replaced by nomadic Turks who formed the Ottoman Empire. Each of these civilizations impelled a thrust of history that did not degenerate until the last decades of the Ottoman Empire. From the final gasp of the Turkish Empire, the victorious allies carved out a complement of nations at the end of World War I. Decades of painful struggles subdued French and British spheres of influence and the lands returned to the sovereignty of Arab peoples. After more than several decades, the borders of these nations have been accepted, except for those who want to divide Iraq, those who believe in a Greater Syria and those who don’t accept the extended Israel.

Each new Middle East nation found its peoples. Not all peoples found their nations. The Palestinians were forced to share their land with settlers from western nations, who arrived with a Zionist program – a national home for Jews in the British Mandate of Palestine and supported by the Balfour Declaration.

Balfour Declaration, 2 November, 1917

His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will 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 and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, 24 July, 1922

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country...

The inhabitants of Palestine refused to accept a Balfour Declaration that lacked legal force. Nevertheless, the League of Nations’ approval of the British mandate in Palestine prevented the formation of a national Palestinian governing body. Overlooked, is that history would have pursued a less confrontational course if the early Zionists used the opportunity to solicit the North African and Middle East Jews (Mizrahim), many who considered themselves Arabs, to move to Palestine and establish a homeland together with the Palestinians.  Instead the Zionists promoted the immigration of European Jews, some of whom came to work in the British administration together with Palestinians. The inordinate number of Jewish immigrants from western nations provoked a conflict. If Mizrahim had originally settled in the area, the conflict might have remained a more manageable dispute between Middle-East populations.

The two pronouncements diverted the natural course of history and unleashed hostilities that have grown with each decade and have reached a perilous state.

The Course of History

The Zionist entrance into Palestine changed the course of Middle East history and with dubious benefit. Despite the propaganda and rhetoric, an analysis of the settlement of Palestine and the creation of an Israel state does not validate a successful result of the original Zionist mission or the creation of a state that is Jewish and protects Jews. The principal result of the original Zionist agenda is that people of uncertain circumstances and favored by the Zionists have been transferred from their home countries to a new land, while people of more certain circumstances and not favored by the Zionists have been displaced from their homes. The less favored have become refugees and, in many cases, been reduced to poverty.

Relatively few Jews who consider themselves ardent Zionists have left their homes and immigrated to Israel, which means that few Jews are active Zionists. The Jews who immigrated to Israel after 1948 arrived for mainly economic and political reasons and not to fulfill a Zionist agenda.  Zionism has not persuaded Jews to leave their western nations, not deterred them from greatly participating in their nations’ economic and social gains and not prevented them from integrating themselves into their nations’ cultures. The Economist (Jan.11,  2007)  mentions that only 17% of American Jews today regard themselves as pro-Zionist and only 57% say that caring about Israel is a very important part of being Jewish.

Israel is the most obvious place in the world where Jews are less safe; attacks against Israel are common. A November 2003 European Union poll selected Israel as the greatest threat to world peace.  Overall, 59 percent of Europeans placed Israel in the top position, ahead of Iran and North Korea. Verbal and physical attacks against Jews are increasing in many countries and the principal reason for the attacks is the antagonism towards Israel being deflected from Israel and to its Jewish supporters.