The limits of reconciliation: Rihani's view statezionism

Arab Studies Quarterly (ASQ), Wntr, 2004 by Christopher Vasillopulos

THE BALFOUR DECLARATION: DISTORTED LANGUAGE AND DEVASTATED LIVES

IT MAY HAVE TAKEN PROPHETIC inspiration to write in 1921, as Ameen Rihani did in The Descent of Bolshevism, that the Bolshevik revolution was an instance of egalitarian criminal conspiracies like the Assassins. When Rihani read the Balfour Declaration, he commented that: 'The British Government has either to perform a miracle or let one of its clients go to the devil' (Fate, p. 39).

   His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in
   Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people, and will use
   their best endeavors 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.

It did not require prophecy to write in the 1930s that State-Zionism would result in unending and increasingly violent conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine (Fate, p.26). I use the term 'State-Zionism' instead of 'political Zionism' to refer to those who believe that Jews must have their own state if they are to be Jews at all. Cultural or religious Zionists may or may not be StateZionists, just as State-Zionists may or may not be religious or follow any particular Jewish practice. Reading the Balfour Declaration in the context of State-Zionist claims would have sufficed. Unfortunately, for over fifty years

Christopher Vasillopulos is a professor in the History/Philosophy/Political Science Department at Eastern Connecticut State University, Willimantic, Connecticut. Rihani's expectations have come true. State-Zionism, along with other destabilizing factors and absolutist movements, has been a 'menace ... to peace in the Near East' (Fate, p. 37).

Rihani knew who would make the journey to hell, as millions of Palestinian refuges can attest. For State-Zionism, from its inception, would make every effort to resolve the contradictory objectives of the Balfour Declaration in favor of a Jewish state. When in 1948 the West recognized the State of Israel, it in effect placed a period after the word 'object' in the Balfour Declaration. Seldom has a punctuation mark resulted in so much bloodshed and misery.

In contrast to this straightforward reading, consider the interpretation of a leading American exponent of State-Zionism: 'The Jewish people, like other historic nationalities, have a right to self-determination. The Jews, having been exiled from their ancestral homeland, cannot effectively exercise their right to self-determination until restored to sovereign possession of their country. Ergo, the Jews are entitled to sovereign possession of Palestine. The subordinate clauses that were appended to the Balfour Declaration had the following significance, in terms of this scheme: Other legitimate rights existed which might conceivably be affected by restoring Jewish sovereignty in Palestine. The restoration should be so conducted that these would not in fact be adversely affected. This was entirely possible, moreover, since the rights in question, by definition, were not incompatible with Jewish sovereignty in Palestine' (Halpern, p. 299). Leaving aside highly problematic historical premises, e.g., the forced exile of all Jews from Palestine without any possibility of return until sovereignty be achieved, note the question begging assumption that Jewish sovereignty in Palestine is to occur first, before other rights have to be considered. The plain reading of the English states that a Jewish Homeland in Palestine--note "sovereignty" is not used--is conditional upon the upholding of other rights of non-Jews already living in Palestine. Before a homeland can be pursued on the ground an agreement must be reached with the indigenous population regarding their rights. Note also, the Declaration refers to a homeland in Palestine, not a homeland of Palestine. Note also the enormous omission that the Palestinians, certainly a historic nationality, might have a right to selfdetermination. At the very least they have been an identifiable people living in the region for two thousand years since the Jews left, and several millennia before that.

The Balfour Declaration does not mention sovereignty at all. If Halpern wishes to introduce the term in his eccentric reading of the document, then he must allow the concept to be used by the Palestinians, the principal non-Jewish community in Palestine. That he does not do so demonstrates his avowed attempt to give an impartial "Wilsonian'" assessment of the idea of the Jewish state and thereby maintain the crucial distinction between scholarly discourse and political advocacy.

This picture of unending ethnic violence, to say nothing of dishonest scholarship, may seem an eccentric way to begin a paper on reconciliation. Yet reality must be confronted, if reconciliation is to be more than a pious hope. The reality of State-Zionist Israel has been disastrous for Palestine, but not because of Jews or Judaism. Like many moderate advocates of the Arab position, Rihani drew a sharp distinction between Jews, who wished to be considered citizens of a different faith and the proponents of State-Zionism, who considered themselves citizens of the Jewish nation, regardless of their domicile or legal status. This distinction has been the crux of the dilemma faced by all those who would understand the conflict in Palestine, including many Jews, particularly those who are fully assimilated into western countries, and Israelis. It was brought into high relief with the Enlightenment and the French Revolution and the consequent rise of the Nation-State.