THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF THE IMPERIALIST-ZIONIST ALLIANCE*

Abdul Wahhab Al Kayyali

(International Symposium on Zionism and Racism, Baghdad November 1976)

In as much as imperialism is an international politico-economic system based on the concept of moral and material inequality of nations, entailing subservience and exploitation of the ruled by the ruler through the oppressive use of force as well as by other means, it is necessarily a racist phenomenon. This is borne out by the historical record of imperialism throughout the world, and without such a basic view, no correct reading of racism and modern history is possible.

Historical evidence points to the fact that Zionism, as we know it, was born within the framework of imperialist thoughts and designs of the early decades of nineteenth century Europe and enthusiastically embraced by some Jewish intellectuals and activists who were influen­ced by the prevalent chauvinist and racist ideas of the latter part of that century. The common denominator was the interest to find solutions for European problems and needs at the expense of other people, in this case the Arabs. The use of the term 'alliance' refers to the partnership and the nature of the link between the two parties and not to any semblence of parity between the two as it is quite obvious that Zionism is merely one of the offshoots of the tree of imperialist ideology. The peculiarities of the Zionist ideology and entity tend to assert rather than negate its racist character.

Zionism as a modern political creed and as an effective organised movement can only be correctly conceived as an artificial or temporary solution to three interacting challenges facing Europe in the nineteenth century, the heyday of Western imperialism.

1. The growth and expansion of European imperialism, which neces­sitated the search for new sources of raw materials and markets for the finished products, in addition to securing the lines of commercial and military communications. The importance of the Arab lands as the gateway to Africa and the bridge to Asia was made abundantly evident by Napoleon's campaign (1797-1799) and by the "dangers" of Mohammed Ali's attempt to form an independent state comprising Egypt and the Arab States. Thus the need for stifling any nascent independent state, doubly more threatening to imperialism in the wake of the spread of Arab-nationalist sentiment, became increasingly persistent as the "Ottoman Empire", the "sick man of Europe," drifted further toward disintegration.

2. The failure of European liberalism and the ideas of equality and democracy to incorporate and assimilate the Jew coupled with the capitalist crisis in Eastern Europe. The adoption of industrialization led to a loss of vocation for a great number of Jews who could not easily adjust to the transformation of the feudal economic system. It is impor­tant to note that Jewish "apartness" was, in the past, a contributory factor to the phenomenon of anti-Jewishness.

3. The spread of aggressive and chauvinist expansionist nationalism in Europe which stressed the racial basis of the national state as well as racial superiority and the need for expansion (Lebensraum) was diver­ted to overseas colonies and possessions. Superiority, exploitation and domination were upheld as a civilizational mission under the notion of the "white man's burden."

The first two of these challenges were known as the "Eastern Question" or the "Syrian Question", and the "Jewish Question". The inter-European rivalries and the scramble for colonies precipitated world wars and revolutions and was transformed into the "colonial question." The first question prompted the major imperialist figures to propose the idea of creating a client Jewish settler-state in Palestine primarily designed to block the fulfillment of unity and independence in that important area of the world and to serve the interests of its sponsors. The events of the latter part of the century were conducive to the creation of a consensus of opinion among the imperialist and Western politicians, with the cooperation of Western Jewish million­aires and anti-Semites everywhere in favor of Zionism and Jewish emigration to, and the establishment of, a Jewish state in Palestine. The interaction of the challenges and the persistence of the problems and issues fed into the imperialist design and directed events toward finding solutions at the expense of peoples of the Third World.

The Growth of Western Influence

Toward the end of the eighteenth century the Western powers' interest in the Arab area intensified as the aging Ottoman Empire became increasingly dependent on the European powers which obtained privi­leges, footholds and spheres of influence within the Empire itself. These powers sought to establish direct links with the various populations and religious sects in the area. Thus France became the protector of the Catholic communities in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine while the Ortho­dox Christians came under Russian protection.

It was during his Palestinian campaign (1799) that Napoleon, moti­vated by his war needs and later by his ambition to attract the loyalty of the Jews as agents throughout the world, issued his call for the re­building of the Temple in Jerusalem and the "return" of the Jews to Palestine for political purposes. Napoleon's campaign itself had aroused British interest in Palestine as it had posed a threat to the British over­land route to India. When Mohammed Ali (Al-Kabir) of Egypt em­barked on his ambitious plan to modernize Egypt and build a strong independent state comprising Egypt, Greater Syria and the Arab Penin­sula during the first decades of the nineteenth century, the British government adopted a course of direct military intervention and was instrumental in driving the armies of Ibrahim Pasha (son of Mohammed Ali) back to Egypt.

Mohammed Ali's advance into Syria opened the Syrian Question (a question which still remains as it is synonymous with Western schemes and endeavours to prevent Arab unity). New British policies were for­mulated. One of the keys to the new approach was Palestine, the Jews a prominent part of its spearhead. In 1838 the British decided to station a British consular agent in Jerusalem and in the following year opened the first European consulate in that city. During the 1840s and the 1850s the British government, which had no protégées of its own, established a connection with the Jews in Palestine (around 9700 in all), the Druze in Lebanon and the new Protestant churches. "Behind the protection of trade and religious minorities there lay the major political and strategic interests of the powers." l

From its start the British presence was associated with the promo­tion of Jewish interests. "This question of British protection of Jews became, however, and remained for many years the principal concern of the British Consulate in Jerusalem."2 The formulation and frame­work of British imperial policy in the area was best drawn out by its architect, Prime Minister Viscount Palmerston. In a letter to the British Ambassador at Constantinople explaining why the Ottoman Sultan should encourage Jewish immigration to Palestine, Palmerston wrote "... the Jewish people if returning under the sanction and protection and at the invitation of the Sultan would be a check upon any future evil designs of Mohammed Ali or his successor."3

It is remarkable indeed that Palmerston used the term "Jewish people" in reference to racial-religious unity as there were no other bonds between the Jews at a time when even prominent Jews were speaking of Jewish "communities," and when the Jewish assimilationist movement, the Haskalah, was making headway. Also noteworthy was the use of the word "returning" in reference to mistaken racial ancestry - as if history stood still for two thousand years - and taking religious memories as a title deed with utter disregard, nay in studied direct opposition, to the will of the inhabitants of the land. All this preceded the conversion of the father of Zionism to Zionism and the official birth of the movement by more than half a century. Nor was Palmerston's concept a bolt in the sky of British imperial policy. This particular idea of erecting a colonial Jewish settler-state in Palestine to serve imperial interests and a variety of moral pretentious was shared and upheld by a number of prominent British imperialist prime ministers, statesmen, military leaders and adventurers. These included Palmerston, Shaftesbury, Colonel Gawler, Disraeli, Rhodes, and Colonel C.H. Churchill, Lawrence Oliphant, Joseph Chamberlain, General Smuts,4 A.J. Balfour and W. Churchill, to name but a few.

Many of these patrons of Zionism were not philo-Semites as is some­times commonly assumed. Balfour's pro-Zionist stance was initiated by Herzl's argument before a British Royal Commission on the immigration of Jews to Britain (1902) that diverting the Jews to Palestine was the solution to that British problem. Lawrence Oliphant provides a very clear-cut case of the contradiction between the moral and idealistic pretensions of gentile Zionists and their actual imperialist motivation. According to Lawrence's biographer, the man "shared much of the facile anti-Semitism of his time."5 A more recent example is provided by President Richard Nixon who provided more arms and money to Israel than all the preceding American Presidents combined and who, according to press reports about the White House tapes, was not above derisory remarks about Jews in his private counsels.

The British imperialist Zionist seed did not sprout immediately and had to await the rains of wider imperialist interest in the area - the opening of the Suez Canal in the 1860s and the British occupation of Cyprus and Egypt in the seventies and eighties respectively. An additional impetus was the spread of anti-Semitism in Eastern and, later, Western Europe.

The growth of Western influence "caused the Western Jewish com­munities to play an increasingly important role in the Holy Land."6 This role was conceived within the confines of these interests under the protection of the privileges (capitulations) granted by the Sultan to the Western powers. It was financed as well as guided by rich Western Jews closely associated with the ruling circles in the West.

The first organizations to promote the proposed colonization program were British and inspired by the Palmerston-Shaftesbury line of thought -- The British and Foreign Society for Promoting the Restoration of the Jewish Nation to Palestine, The Association for Promoting Jewish Settlements in Palestine, The Society for the Promo­tion of Jewish Agricultural Labour in the Holy Land. The Jewish Chronicle was established and became "an important vehicle for the popularization of Palestine colonization in Jewish circles."7 In 1861 the London Hebrew Society for the colonization of the Holy Land and the French Alliance established the agricultural school of Mikveh Israel near Jaffa, obviously aiming at the settlement of Jews in Palestine on a considerable scale. Richard Stevens explained this surge of French interest: "Following the Crimean War there was generally a renewed interest in extending French influence in the Levant and various political writers championed not only the protection of an autonomous and Christian province of Lebanon but also an autonomous Jewish province of Palestine."8

At that stage several British writers wrote pamphlets promoting the idea of Jewish settlement in Palestine. Byron's Hebrew Melodies, George Eliot's Daniel Deronda and Disraeli's Tanored conveyed a romantic touch and stimulated public acceptance of the self-interested British-inspired idea of a Jewish "return" to Palestine.

These Western attitudes and efforts provided the necessary back­ground for the emergence of Zionism. As previously noted two Euro­pean developments in the second half of the nineteenth century pro­vided the necessary birth conditions of the imperialist-conceived Zionist idea and implanted it in Jewish minds as if it was a natural and inner-motivated Jewish development. The first was the direct and indirect result of the intellectual and political growth of European chauvinist nationalism. It was no accident that the first proponent of the Jewish national idea as a modem creed, Moses Hess, entitled his book Rome and Jerusalem (1862) in direct reference to the nationalist movement in Italy, and in which he embraced the racial concepts and the pseudo-scientific racist theories of the nineteenth century. Hess stressed that Jews should avoid assimilation and reassert their unique­ness by "reconstituting their national centre in Palestine." For all his attempted logic, Hess, like most Zionist thinkers, betrays the intrinsic superstitious and messianic traits in what is often otherwise non-religious Zionism, when he speaks of imminent victory of the Jewish idea thus heralding the "Sabbath of History." It is not the immediate impact of Rome and Jerusalem that is of primary historical importance but rather the intellectual and political climate that produced it. To the intellec­tual and political founders of Zionism the realpolitik of European statesmen was of tremendous influence, that of Bismarck a virtual inspiration.

The second European development which pushed the Zionist idea to the fore was the Russian pogroms in 1881. These pogroms led to a mass exodus of Jews to Eastern and Western Europe and brought about the collapse of the Haskalah assimilations movement. Its place was taken by a new movement, Hibbath Zion (the Love of Zion), inspired by Leo Pinsker's pamphlet Auto-Emancipation (1882). Societies were formed in Jewish centers to discuss the question of settling in Palestine as an immediate and practical prospect and the revival of Hebrew as a living language. The first Jewish colonists belonged to an organization of Russo-Jewish students, known as Bilu, which was formed at Kharkov for the specific purpose of colonizing Palestine.

Herzl and the Growth of Zionism

Despite the sprouting of colonial-oriented Jewish organizations no cen­tral leadership emerged. The continuing flow of Jewish immigrants into Western Europe brought anti-Semitism and intensified the interest of prominent Western Jews in the fate of the Jews of Eastern Europe. A famous Jewish family, the ultra-rich Rothschilds, financed an endeavour to minimize Jewish immigration to Western Europe by diverting it to Palestine; thus the dire consequences of anti-Semitism were avoided and Jewry was aligned to the expansive imperialist inter­ests in the Middle East in the post-Suez era.9 A young Viennese Jew, a journalist by profession, named Theodor Herzl was to provide the political and organizational leadership of the new movement.

What converted Herzl from indifference to his Jewishness to active Zionism was the anti-Semitic Dreyfus Affair of 1894. In 1896 his Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) aroused the interests of Jewish activists from various parts of the Western world. The book dealt with the situa­tion of the Jews and argued that only through the attainment of state­hood on a land purely their own could the Jewish Question be solved. In the following year Herzl was able to convene the First Zionist Congress at Basle (August, 1897) and form the World Zionist Organiza­tion. Herzl was elected president and its carefully worded program declared that the aim of Zionism was a "publicly recognized, legally secured homeland in Palestine," to be achieved through organization, colonization and negotiation under the umbrella of the imperialist powers.

It would be difficult to overstate the importance of Herzl's ideas and the effect his efforts had on the Zionist movement. As the founding father, he left his imprint on the entire mold of that movement and may be said to have influenced it more than any other leader. A reading of his works and the follow-up of his frame of mind and reference of action, as well as an analysis of the congress at Basle are most revealing particularly in the light of his meticulously and candidly recorded Diaries.10 His ideas, strategies and methods were of tremendous impact on Zionist thought and action, even to the point of becoming character­istic of the movement.

Herzl's Zionism was an outcome of the Jewish Question and his vision of its solution within the framework of alliance with the domin­ant imperialist powers and as molded by the ideologies of nationalist-cum-racist European movements and societies. To Herzl these societies were permanently incapable of tolerating the Jew who was alienated by his apartness and nonconformism and this was the basis of anti-Semitism as well as of the rootlessness of the Jew. The solution could not possibly be the reform of these societies through such notions as freedom and equality, nor the loss of Jewish identity and apartness, but rather the realization of conformity on "a national basis" and the alignment of the proposed Jewish national-state, which was to be established on a purely Jewish land, with the European powers, whose umbrella and patronage was necessary for bringing about the state as well as protect­ing it thereafter, in return for services rendered against third parties.

The relationship between the European powers and the proposed Zionist settler-state was conceived on an imperialist-colonialist basis. This underlying fact notwithstanding, Zionist colonialism had nuances of its own, which in turn render it more anomalous or extreme. The first of these nuances was that while the European colonialists were an extension of an already established national identity and state, the Jewish colonialists sought to forge a nation or a national identity through the colonization act itself. Unlike the other nation-seeking movements this was to be based on religion, as they did not speak one language nor did they have social norms and continued historical experience in common.11 In order to make it more viable to the Euro­pean mind, Zionism claimed the racial unity of the Jews thus adding pseudo-scientificism to the anachronistic concept of building a religious nation state. Another characteristic was that, while endeavouring to secure the enthusiastic patronage of the most powerful or most inter­ested of the Western powers, Zionism based itself on the consensus of Western and imperialist powers through and through. It sought and procured benefit from inter-imperialist competition in contradistinc­tion with other colonial settler-states. The last of these nuances was an ideologically-powered one-namely that Zionism sought to expel the "natives" as their basic strategy called for a purely Jewish national state.

Any thorough examination of the writings and guiding lines of Zionist theory and action would reveal the overriding and dynamic impact of imperialist thought and modus operandi, as well as the dominant racist influence of nineteenth century Europe. To illustrate this it is proposed to establish Herzl's outlook and methods regarding the basic concepts and issues involved in the imperialist-Zionist alliance with occasional reference to his successors to point out the consistency and continuity of Zionist strategy and tactics. It should be noticed how influential and crucial were Palmerston's proposals and thoughts and subsequently the climate of British imperialist and European racist thought, on the subject of a Jewish settler-state in Palestine.

Outlook

The fundamental concepts underpinning Herzl's thought and Zionist outlook are in his Der Judenstaaf. "Supposing His Majesty the Sultan were to give us Palestine, we could in return undertake to regulate the whole finances of Turkey. We should there form a portion of the ram­part of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilisation as opposed to barbarism. We should, as a neutral State, remain in contact with all Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence."12 The same theme recurs, appropriately enough, in Herzl's address to the First Zionist Congress: "It is more and more to the interest of the civilised nations and of civilisation in general that a cultural station be estab­lished on the shortest road to Asia. Palestine is this station and we Jews are the bearers of culture who are ready to give our property and our lives to bring about its creation."13

Twenty-one years later, Herzl's prominent successor Chaim Weizmann was to explain to the British imperialist statesman most readily associated with Zionism, Arthur James Balfour, the contemplated Zionist plan: "a community of four to five million Jews in Palestine ... from which the Jews could radiate out into the Near East.... But all this pre-supposes free and unfettered development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine not mere facilities for colonisation."1 This concept did not only echo Palmerston's proposal but also respon­ded to the rising Western needs in the area after the opening of the Suez Canal, British occupation of Egypt and World War I. The gist of British strategic thought was spelled out in a memorandum by the General Staff at the War Office: "The creation of a buffer Jewish

State in Palestine, though this State will be weak in itself, is strategically desirable for Great Britain."1

Basic Strategy

The Basle Program, formulated by the First Zionist Congress determined that the "aim of Zionism is to create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law." A reading of Herzl's Diaries as well as an examination of subsequent Zionist action would reveal that the term "public law" refers to the patronage of the imperialist powers. This patronage was deemed necessary in more ways than one. Herzl sought a colonial concession with explicit and public imperial backing as this would establish his own credibility among the Jews16 as well as secure viability and protection to the venture. He envisaged that the European powers would back Zionism for one of three main motives: (1) imperial­ist self-interest; (2) ridding themselves of Jews and anti-Semitism (in West Europe's case avoiding the influx of Jewish immigrants from East­ern Europe) and (3) using organized Jewish influence to combat revolu­tionary movements and other internal factors.

Herzl first turned to the German Kaiser, the "one man who would understand my plan,"17 not merely because of the German cultural influence within Zionist ranks but because Germany was bent on push­ing its imperialist way toward the East:

German policy has taken an Eastern course, and there is something symbolic about the Kaiser's Palestine journey in more than one sense. I am, therefore, more firmly convinced than ever that our movement will receive help whence I have patiently been expecting it for the past two years. By now it is clear that the settlement of the shortest route to Asia by a neutral (among Europeans) national ele­ment could also have a certain value for Germany's Oriental policy.18

In a draft letter to the Kaiser, Herzl later explained the Zionist aim and its use to Germany's Oriental policy, that the Jews were the only Euro­pean colonialists ready and willing to settle Palestine as the land was poor, and that Palestine had to be settled as it occupied a strategic posi­tion. Europe, he added, "would more readily permit settlement to the Jews. Perhaps not so much because of the historic right guaranteed in the most sacred book of mankind, but because of the inclination, present in most places, to let the Jews go."1

This last argument was his passway to M. de Pleuwhe the anti-Semitic Russian Minister of Interior who in 1903 endorsed the Zionist idea.20

It was inevitable that London would become the center of gravity.21 Britain was the imperialist power most interested in the future of Pales­tine as it had possessions in neighboring countries as well as an interest in the overland route to India. There Herzl approached the arch-imperial­ist Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain, through the good offices of Lord Rothschild, whom Herzl described as "the greatest effective force that our people has had since its dispersion."22 During the Chamberlain interview in October 1902, Herzl's voice trembled as he explained his proposal for an Anglo-Zionist partnership involving colonial concessions for the Jews in Cyprus, el Arish and the Sinai Peninsula to serve as a "rallying point for the Jewish people in the vicinity of Palestine."23 (A later reference will be made to the imperialist-colonialist logic used by Herzl.) To Chamberlain and to Lord Lansdowne, the foreign secretary, Herzl explained that by patronizing the Zionist endeavour the British Empire would not only "be bigger by a rich colony" but that also ten million Jews:

will all wear England in their hearts if through such a deed it becomes the protective power of the Jewish people. At one stroke England will get ten million secret but loyal subjects active in all walks of life all over the world. At a signal, all of them will place themselves at the service of the magnanimous nation that brings long-desired help .... England will get ten million agents for her greatness and her influence. And the effect of this sort of thing usually spreads from the political to the economic.24

Herein lies the Zionist quid pro quo: for the power that undertakes to be universal protector they offer the Jews as universal agents and the Jewish settler-state as a client-state.

Herzl's efforts in England included soliciting the backing of the major colonialist figures. Foremost among them was Cecil Rhodes and in a letter to Rhodes Herzl explained that although his project did not involve Africa but a piece of Asia Minor, "But had this been on your path, you would have done it yourself by now."25 Why then did Herzl turn to him, the Zionist leader rhetorically asked; "Because it is some­thing colonial" was the answer.26 What Herzl sought was a Rhodes certificate for colonial viability and desirability - "I Rhodes, have examined this plan and found it correct and practicable" and quite good for England, for Greater Britain. Furthermore, there was profit for Rhodes and his associates if they joined in.

Rhodes died before Herzl got what he wanted from him. Fifteen years later Herzl's successor Weizmann obtained from the British imperialists what Herzl could not possibly have obtained from his British sympathizers, namely imperialist patronage protection for a Jewish National Home in the form of the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917. International endorsements (public law) followed from the other powers and the Declaration was incorporated in the Palestine Mandate against the will of the Arab Palestinian people who constituted the overwhelming majority of the population of Palestine.27

At a later stage the Zionists obtained U.S. patronage for statehood endorsed by "public law" in the form of the Palestine Partition Plan (1947) followed by the Tripartite Declaration (1950), the major imperi­alist powers (the United States, Britain and France) guaranteeing the expanded Zionist state. The U.N. Resolution of November, 1975 regard­ing Zionism as a form of racism is the beginning of rectifying this anomalous situation.

Basic Tactics

Zionism sought self-fulfillment through mobilizing the Jews, negotia­tions with the imperialist powers and colonization. The primary mobili­zing force in favor of Zionism was anti-Semitism, which, as we have seen, attracted gentile politicians to the Zionist fold. Herzl explained: "No great exertion will be necessary to stimulate the immigration movement. The anti-Semites are already taking care of this for us."28 Indeed a prominent "spiritual" Zionist - Ahad Ha'am - described Herzlian Zionism as being "the product of anti-Semitism and is depen­dent on anti-Semitism for its existence."29 The Grand Duke of Baden told Herzl that "people regarded Zionism as a species of anti-Semitism"30 and Herzl reported it without objecting. Wherever anti-Semitism was weak or nonexistent the Zionist movement sought to elicit "Jewish national feeling" by incitement and propaganda or by staging anti-Jewish violent acts through special agents as happened in Iraq after 1948.

Another means of mobilizing Jewish opinion was the appeal to Jewish complexes through certain Jewish notions, most notably that of the "chosen people." In the racist climate of nineteenth century Europe this was transformed to sound like the notion of the "white man's burden," and tied to the concept of the "Promised Land" and the promise of "return," despite the fact that the leading Zionists were either nonreligious or downright agnostics. Moses Hess maintained, "Every Jew has the makings of a Messiah, every Jewess that of a Mater Dolorosa." Ahad Ha'am stated, "We feel ourselves to be the aristocracy of history." Herzl declared, "Our race is more efficient in everything than most other peoples of the earth."31 In 1957 Ben Gurion asserted the same notion, "I believe in our moral and intellectual superiority to serve as a model for the redemption of the human race."32

The second tactic - negotiations with the imperialists - involved stressing the common interests against third parties as the basis of partnership, and the use of deception and graft. During his negotiations with Chamberlain over Jewish colonization of Cyprus, Herzl betrayed his colonialist outlook and method: "Once we establish the Jewish Eastern Company, with five million pounds capital, for settling Sinai and El Arish, the Cypriots will begin to want that golden rain on their island, too. The Moslems will move away, the Greeks will gladly sell their lands at a good price and migrate to Athens or Crete."33

The colonization tactic was an even more telling feature of the nature of Zionism for it explains its colonial nature, its dependence on imperialism and its racist attitudes vis-à-vis the Arab natives as well as its intended reactionary role in the area. The names and purposes of the early colonization nation-building instruments tell something about the nature of the Zionist movement - The Jewish Colonial Trust (1898), the "colonization commission" (1898), the Palestine Land Development Company. From the start the Zionist colonists sought to acquire lands in strategic locations, evict the Arab peasants and boycott Arab labour; all this was closely related with the essence of Zionism, the creation of a Jewish nation on "purely" Jewish land, as Jewish as England was English to use their famous expression.34 The same notion was clearly implied by Palmerston's concept of a Jewish barrier colonial-state.

These aspects of Zionism became more pronounced as the Zionist colonial invasion developed. Here again these Zionist traditions owe their origins to Herzl and his racist-colonial dominated mind: "The voluntary expropriation will be accomplished through our secret agents ... we shall then sell only to Jews, and all real estate will be traded only among Jews."35

What about the fate of the natives? "We shall try to spirit the penni­less population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country .... The property owners will come to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."36

But before spiriting them away Herzl had some work for them:

"If we move into a region where there are wild animals to which the Jews are not accustomed - big snakes, etc.... - I shall use the natives, prior to giving them employment in the transit countries, for the extermination of the animals."37 When he later discovered that the Zionist colonies needed large-scale drainage operations he decided to use the Arabs, a fever attacked the workers and he did not want to expose the Zionists to such dangers.38

But what would happen if the Arabs refused to be spirited away from the country they naturally considered their own? Herzl could not have possibly ignored what all colonialists and colonial ventures possess as a precondition to their venture: "Out of this proletariat of intellectu­als I shall form the general staff and the cadres of the army which is to seek, discover, and take over the land."39 His projected army would comprise "one-tenth of the male population; less would not suffice internally."40 Indeed life in his proposed Zionist state would have to be paramilitary: "Organize the labor battalions along military lines, as far as possible."41

No one can accuse Herzl of not realizing the logical conclusions of this plan: evicting the natives would be a formidable task and the unheard of ration of one-tenth of the male population for internal purposes is in order. Regimenting labor is a corollary to the garrison-state, the forward citadel of Western "civilization" in what Herzl considered the "filthy corners"42 of the Orient.

Using force was what British imperialist bayonets had to perform in Palestine to enforce the Zionist Jewish National Home in the wake of the Anglo-Zionist unholy marriage declared on November 2, 1917. Weizmann lost no time in facing the British with the facts of imperial­ist life in Palestine as early as 1919: "Will the British apply self-deter­mination in Palestine which is five hours from Egypt or not? If not it will have to be coerced ... Yes or no: it amounts to that."43 On this point as on many other issues Weizmann found himself on the same platform as the major British imperialist politicians.44

Zionist Expansionism

The annals of Zionist history are full of Zionist leaders outdoing other Zionist leaders on the importance of military power and the role of military action and terror in the building and safeguarding of the Zionist state: Joseph Trumpeldor, Vladimir Jabotinsky, Menahem Begin, Ben Gurion and all the generals-turned-politicians. In some of their writings and revelations the gods of the Zionist war machine assert that violence and coercion are the backbone of the plan to enforce the Zionist program, in addition to its being an adulation of power in reaction to Jewish meekness in European history. This was necessarily so because the Zionists invaded the country, evicted the majority of the population, followed this up by further use of force and terrorism45 and continued to carry out their expansionist schemes through wars and military occupation. The garrison-state had to expand the domain of the citadel as an inner mechanism (economic, political and psychologi­cal) as well as to intimidate the Arabs for the benefit of imperialist designs in the area.

Expansionism was not alien to Herzl, an admirer of German expan­sionists as well as British imperialists: "We ask for what we need - the more immigrants, the more land."4

The story of Zionist expansionism is a long one,47 suffice it to read the above statement in the light of the Zionist aim of the in-gathering of all the Jews of the world and to remember the utterances of the major leaders of Israel in 1956 and 1967 which in essence reflected another of Herzl's mottoes: "Area: from the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates."48

These attitudes are part and parcel of Zionism. Jay Gonen, an Israeli scholar, writes of "the Arab Problem": "From the very beginning of the Zionist endeavor most Zionists displayed a blind spot in their view of the Arabs, a blind spot that was a total lack of vision and later became distorted vision."49 They called the Arabs derogatory racist names and were convinced "that the Arabs understood only the language of force, a bias that persisted for many years and became especially pronounced after the Holocaust."50 The Israelis, furthermore, are convinced "that physical force is the only tangible political reality which carries weight and is significant in the affairs of nations... current Israeli political vision is mostly conceptualized in terms of tanks, jets."51

The prevalence of the Massada complex or fortress Israel is not accidental. Nor was Golda Meir's absurd rhetoric of June 15, 1969 when she inquired assertively "The Palestinians ... where are they? there is no such thing."52 The Koenig report53 is merely the most recent manifestation, by no means the most extreme, of Zionist attitudes towards the Arabs of Palestine.

It would be both erroneous and dangerous, however, to think that Zionist racist-colonialist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs are divorced from the wide context of imperialist-Zionist attitude vis-à-vis Arab unity and the Arab future as a whole. On several occa­sions Herzl sought to present Zionism as the political meeting point between Christianity and Judaism in their common stance against Islam and the "barbarism" of the Orient. A thorough reading of Herzl reveals that to him as well as to other imperialists the term "Islam" refers to the Arabs and to no other Islamic people. This became more evident when the Zionists allied themselves with the Ottoman Revolu­tion of 1908 "in their common battle against the incipient Arab national movement and Arab independence."54 In 1919, in a secret meeting attended by Weizmann and a number of high-ranking British officials the matter was very frankly discussed. Ormsby-Gore, who later became colonial secretary and therefore effective ruler of Palestine, was in favour of encouraging non-Moslems, Europeans and Jews, to develop and stabilize the Near East in view of the fact that Islam was the main dan­ger. Since the Zionist Organization provided the required human ele­ment to man the Palestinian outpost in Europe's fight against Islam: "It is the interest of England to assist the Zionist Organization and any other organization which may cooperate with them in the practical development of Jewish colonization in Palestine".55

The idea of Balkanization was implemented in the post-World War I division of the Arab nation. Zionism, however, continued to work for the creation of smaller sectarian states, this time in cooperation with the French imperialists. During the thirties a Zionist rapprochement with the pro-French Maronite leaders in the Lebanon took place. In 1941, as the Zionists began to push for declaring their state, an associ­ate of Ben Gurion, Berl Katznelson stated: "We should say to the Arab peoples: in us, Jews, you see an obstacle in your way toward indepen­dence and unification. We do not deny it."56

After 1948 the Zionist state worked on creating a "Druze national­ity" through state legislation and segregation from the other sectors of the Arab population in Palestine. In 1965, the foremost Zionist spokes­man, the then Foreign Minister Abba Eban wrote a major article in Foreign Affairs, which presented a polite sugar-coated version of Zionist thinking and strategy. Eban reiterated the Zionist opposition to Arab unity claiming that the area is a mosaic and that a Jewish state therefore is a natural part of the scene. More recently the Zionists have been very active in the Lebanese civil war. Their backing of the Maron­ite isolationists is no longer a secret.

From the imperialist point of view Zionist opposition to Arab unity is Israel's raison d'etre, from the Zionist point of view it is a sine qua non. Viewed in the wider imperialist context Israel is essentially a tool, a bet, against Arab liberation, unity and progress. Historically, Zionism sought to ally Jews and imperialist gentiles against and at the expense of the Arabs. They sought to bring about Jewish conformism by adopting the same reactionary notions that aggravated the Jewish situation in Europe. Zionism accepted and emulated (elsewhere) the notions of the European enemies of the Jews: chauvinist nationalism, anti-Semi­tism and reactionary governments. With the help of the imperialist West they recreated the ghetto in the East in the form of an alien aggressive nation-state, and reincarnated the traditional role of being an agent for the feudal lord by becoming the agent of the dominant imperialist power, only this time they could play the role of the oppressor for a change. That is why Zionism viewed anti-Semitism as being one of its best friends for they constitute two faces of the same coin: Zionism represented an escapist reactionary movement, a negative verdict on human societies and their inability to tolerate the Jew merely because he is different.

Inasmuch as Israel is a regression to the idea of religion as a basis for a nation-state it is an anachronism. Inasmuch as it is an alien Western invasion of Arab land it is another Crusade doomed to failure. Inasmuch as it is a colonial-racist state it is an enemy of the spirit of the age of liberation and equality. Thus, the peoples of the Third World started to move in the direction of denying Zionism the international legiti­macy it unjustly enjoyed since the declaration of its state. Inasmuch as it is naturally allied to the imperialist powers in their battle against Arab rights and the Arab future it will collapse with the defeat of imperialism in the Arab homeland as it was defeated elsewhere.

The verdict of history is clear: there is no place in the coming cen­tury for racism, Zionism and imperialism. The peoples of the Third World shall assert their rights and liberate themselves, thus ridding all societies of the burden of inequality and oppression.

 

Notes

1 - Albert Hourani, "Ottoman Reform and the Politics of Notables," in Beginning of Modernisation in the Middle East: The Nineteenth Century, ed. William Polk and Richard Chambers (Chicago, 1968), pp. 41-68.

2 - Albert Hyamson, The British Consulate in Jerusalem in Relation to the Jews of Palestine, 1838-1914 (London, 193941) pt.l, p. xxxiv.

3 - Viscount Palmerston to Viscount Ponsonby, August 2,1840, P.O. 78/390 (No 134), Public Record Office.

4 - See the excellent study by Richard Stevens, Weizmann and Smuts (Beirut, 1976).

5 - See Philip Henderson, The Life of Lawrence Oliphant, Traveller, Diplomat, and Mystic (London, 1956).

6 - Ben Halpern, The Idea of a Jewish State (Cambridge Mass., 1961), p. 107.

7 - A. Taylor, The Zionist Mind, (Beirut, 1974).

8 - Richard Stevens, Zionism and Palestine Before the Mandate (Beirut, 1972), p. 6.

9 - The Rothschilds themselves were extremely involved in the Suez Canal. It was Disraeli, with money from the Rothschilds, who acquired the British share in the Suez holding company which later brought British invasion of Egypt.

10 - Raphael Patai, ed. and Harry Zohn, trans., Diaries of Theodor Herzl (New York and London, 1960).

11 - For a thorough discussion of the subject see Godfrey Jansen, Zionism, Israel and Asian Nationalism (Beirut, 1971), pp. 12-79.

12. Patai, ed., Diaries p. 213.

13 - Quoted in Jansen, Zionism, p. 83.

14 - "Note on the Interview with Mr. Balfour," December 4, 1918, P.O. 371/ 3385, PRO.

15 - "The Strategic Importance of Syria to the British Empire," General Staff, War Office, December 9, 1918, P.O. 371/4178, PRO.

16 - Patai, ed., Diaries, pp. 223, 240-41 and 445.

17 - Ibid., p. 187.

18 - Ibid., pp. 63940.

19 - Ibid., p. 642.

20 – Ibid., p. 1535.

21 - Ibid., p. 276.

22 - Ibid., p. 1302.

23 - Ibid., p. 1362.

24 - Ibid., pp. 1365-66.

25 - Ibid.,p. 1194.

26 - Ibid.,

27 - For a detailed history of Palestinian Arab resistance to Zionism and imperialism, see Abdul Wahhab Kayyali, Tarikh Falastin al-Hadith [Modern History of Palestine] (Beirut, 1970).

28 - Patai, ed., Diaries, p. 152.

29 - A. Hertzberg, The Zionist Idea (New York, 1959), p. 24.

30 - Patai, ed., Diaries, p. 657.

31 - Quoted in Junsen, Zionism, pp. 33-34.

32 - See Patai, ed., Diaries, pp. 70, 322, 568 etc.

33 - Ibid., p. 1362.

34 - See Kayyali, Tarikh Falastin.

35 - Patai, ed., Diaries, p. 89.

36 - Ibid., p. 88.

37 - Ibid.,p. 89.

38 - Ibid., p. 740-741.

39 - Ibid., p. 28.

40 - Ibidp.38.

41 - Ibid., p.64.

42 - Ibid., p. 1449.

43 - May 10, 1919, Central Zionist Archives, Z/16009.

44 - See Balfour to Prime Minister, February 19, 1919, P.O. 371/4179.

45 - For a detailed account of Zionist terrorism see Who Are the Terrorists, (Beirut, 1974).

46 - Patai, ed., Diaries, p. 701.

47 - For a detailed account see al-Matame al Sahhiyoniyyah al-Tawsuuyyah [Zionist Expansionism] (Beirut, 1966).

48 - Patai, ed., Diaries, p. 711.

49 - Jay Gonen,A Psychohistory of Zionism (New York, 1975), p. 182.

50 - Ibid., p. 180.

51 - Ibid., p 181.

52 - Zionist propaganda had previously circulated the totally deceptive motto "Land without people, people without land," in reference to Palestine and the Jews.

53 - Al Hamishmar, September 7, 1976.

54 - See Kayyali, Tarikh Falastin, chap. 2.

55 - May 10, 1919, C.Z.A. Z/16009.

56 - Gonen, Psychohistory, p. 186.

Back to Main Page