The Balfour Declaration and the Political Legacy of Colonialism - Case Study Example

The balfour delcaration and the political legacy of colonialism Colonialism has had a lasting impact in many countries of the developing world and the modern Middle East is no exception. Few countries were immune to colonial penetration and the enduring influence of the colonial legacy can be found in the underdeveloped regions of the world today. Seeking to explore the impact of the British colonial enterprise on a country in the Middle East, this paper will discuss the ramifications of European colonialism in Israel/Palestine. We begin with an overview of the impetus for colonialism, the Balfour Declaration, arguably the most significant colonial document during the period of the British Mandate in Palestine, and the legacy of the colonial experience on the politics of Israel/Palestine today. An important issue that will be discussed here is the displacement of the indigenous Palestinian population and the subsequent creation of a Jewish state in the Mandate of Palestine. This is the political legacy of the British colonial enterprise in Israel/Palestine as a result of the Balfour Declaration. This analysis, while seeking to be broad in scope and aimed at providing a complete overview of Israel/Palestine, will be historical but will also focus on the future implications of imperial domination. The imperial power discussed in this essay is Great Britain and this essay will conclude with a summary of the main issues explored while providing a thorough analysis of the colonial political legacy as a result of the Balfour Declaration in the Israel/Palestine of today. Background: A Historical Analysis Historically speaking, few places on earth share the religious importance of present-day Israel. In fact, the land of Israel has tremendous historical significance for all three major monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). Jews revere the Wailing (Western) Wall, as the site of the Second Temple, and modern Israel as the land of Abraham and Moses. Christians from around the world look towards Bethlehem, in the present day West Bank, as the birthplace of Christ. For Muslims the Dome of the Rock is the third holiest site in Islam (after Mecca and Medina) and is revered as the place where Mohammed ascended to heaven. And finally, the ancient city Jerusalem has held mystic sway over the “peoples of the book” (Bible/Torah/Koran) for more than two millennia (Bloom 13). Established in the wake of the First World War and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, the British Mandate for Palestine began under League of Nations auspices. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 committed her Majesty’s government to the establishment of a “Jewish National Home” - purposefully vague wording – in the lands of Palestine. Following the War, the Arab lands of the Middle East were partitioned between the French and British powers respectively and each was give mandatory status over the newly conquered lands of the former Ottoman Empire. France obtained title to modern day Syria and Lebanon while the British received Mandates over the territory which now encompasses the states of Iraq, Jordan and Israel. Almost immediately after the creation of the Palestine Mandate, the colonial British authorities received pressure from both Zionist Jewish organizations and indigenous Palestinian Arab groups to declare the country independent and establish either an Arab state on both sides of the Jordan River or a Jewish National Home in Palestine. The Balfour Declaration triggered animosities between the different communities in Palestine almost immediately (Times Archive 1917) The colonial era in Palestine was one in which the British authorities had to deal with two competing nationalisms and the zero-sum nature of the Arab and later, Jewish, demands for statehood in Palestine. This era was also one in which Jewish immigration to the Mandate increased extensively. Accordingly, during the Mandate period, the Jewish community in Palestine grew from 1/6th of the total population in the territory to almost 1/3rd. Between 1920 and 1945, the colonial office reports that 367,845 Jews legally immigrated into the country, significantly upsetting the demographic nature of Palestine. The colonial period was also characterized by extreme violence perpetrated by sides against each other as well as against the Mandate power (Morris 200-211). After the Second World War and eager to wash its hands of the growing problems associated with a Palestinian Mandate including extreme violence on both sides of the nationalist debate and rising costs after the Second World War, the British established an independence timetable and with the new demographic balance in mind, the British began preparations to leave the Mandate in the hands of its residents, By facilitating incredible demographic changes in such a short period of time, actions of the British paved the way for the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 following its War of Independence and the displacement of the Palestinian people. Accordingly, the modern state of Isreal would never have come into being without the Balfour Declaration of 1917 (see Brynen 1990). Discussion: The Colonial Legacy The Balfour Declaration of 1917 paved the way for almost one century of nationalist conflict. Accordingly, a Jewish state in the Middle East remains a divisive and controversial subject. Condemned by its neighbors as an unnatural colonial implant, Israel is frequently subject to international sanction and scrutiny. The status of the Palestinian people, seemingly on the cusp of statehood not long ago, remains increasingly complex and forever unresolved. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict remains one of the most enduring and complex disputes of modern times. Historian Benny Morris traces the origin of this conflict to early Jewish settlement in the Ottoman region of Filastin (modern day Israel/Palestine) and the origins of the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians are important today because two key issues between the warring parties remain largely unchanged since the late ninetieth century. For more than one hundred years these two fundamental issues have driven, contributed to, and exacerbated the protracted nature of this conflict. The first major issue is territorial and the question of land. At its very core, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a conflict over land; a tiny sliver of land, semi arid and dry, bordering the Mediterranean Sea and roughly the size of New Jersey (Central Intelligence Agency, 2008). The second major issue is the juxtaposition of Israeli and Palestinian identities; competing nationalisms which were at odds decades before the establishment of the modern state of Israel. It is these two core issues, disputed land and competing nationalisms, which are fundamental to the conflict and which must be tackled with vigor if one seeks to resolve the crisis. As we have seen, the British colonial legacy in modern Israel/Palestine shaped the future of the Middle East for the next sixty years. In the wake of the horrors of the Second World War, the British government took steps to establish a Jewish National Home in the territory of Mandate Palestine and directly or indirectly facilitated the establishment of the modern state of Israel. While the religious importance of the land of Israel is seeped in history, the land issue became increasingly complex with the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948. And while numbers vary, it is commonly accepted that between 350,000 and 1,000,000 Palestinians fled their homes or were expelled during the war of Israeli Independence in 1948. The Palestinian refugee crisis is tied to the land and the “right of return” has been an insurmountable roadblock peace between Palestinians and Israelis for the better half of six decades. Palestinian refugees account for one of the world’s largest refugee communities in the world and compensation and/or the right to return has been demanded by Palestinian negotiators during the course of all attempts at negotiation. The loss of land and the “right of return” are essential components of the Palestinian collective identity and are embedded in the national consciousness of the Palestinian people (Brynen & El Rifai 33-44). The second major issue confronting Palestinians and Israelis are the competing nationalisms. Inextricably tied to the land, Palestinian and Israeli identities grew together and in juxtaposition of one another. Both national identities are relatively recent creations and a direct result of the nation building dialogue of the 20th century. Zionism, the belief that Jews should return and settle the ancient land of Israel, was an outgrowth of years of mistreatment of Jews in Europe, including pogroms and outright ethnic cleansing. Palestinianism – the belief that the Arab people of Palestine constitute a unique national community deserving a state of its own – grew in response to Zionist encroachment and settlement in the late ninetieth and early twentieth century. The belief that Zionism and Palestinianism are incompatible is a persistent feature of this conflict. It has also been a major impediment to any attempts at peace (BBC 2002). After years of diplomatic intervention and attempts to mediate between the two parties, a resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict seems unlikely for the near future. Recognition, mutual respect and redress for past injustices must factor into a settlement of this conflict. As we have shown, theses issues are not new and have remain unresolved since the early days of the British Mandate in Palestine. Palestinians must be given the opportunity to realize their dream of statehood and receive land of their own as well as compensation for land lost during 1948. Israel must be recognized as a legitimate political entity with legitimate rights, including the right to security and peace. Only by addressing the issues of land and competing national ideologies will a settlement be brought to fruition (The Economist 2008). Concluding Remarks Despite some positive attributes of British colonialism, the colonial enterprise has left a long lasting and generally quite negative imprint on the countries of the former British Empire in the Middle East. Accordingly, the modern state of Israel was created with disregard for the indigenous majority Arab population and this bred antagonism more than sixty years ago. As we see on the news nearly every night, the violent conflict between Israelis and Arab Palestinians continues to descend into conflict and violence. This exploration of the British imperial experience in Israel/Palestine further supports the argument that overall the British colonial experience in the Middle East did more to create tension and exacerbate problems than alleviate them. The Balfour Declaration ignored the wishes of the majority Arab population in Palestine and set the stage for a near century of ethnic conflict in Palestine/Israel. More than 60 years after the establishment of the state Israel, the Palestinian people remain displaced and a violent Palestinian insurgency in the semi-autonomous territories of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank continues unabated. The Britain imperial legacy in Israel has had disastrous implications for the security of the region and the ramifications continue unabated as a political settlement to the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict seems further and further away. Works Cited Bloom, M. Dying to Kill: The Allure of Suicide Terror. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. British Broadcasting Corporation, 2002. Arafat Defiant after Bush Speech. Retrieved July 29, 2009, from BBC online http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2064733.stm Brynen, R. Sanctuary and Survival: The PLO in Lebanon. Boulder: Westview, 1990 Brynen, R. & R. E. Rifai. Palestinian Refugees: Challenges of Repatriation and Development. London: I.B. Taurus, 2007. Morris, B. Righteous Victims: a History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict. New York: Random House, 2007. The Economist (2008, April 26-May 2). “The Palestinian Territories: Chicken and Eggs”, 65-66. The Times Archive. (November 9, 1917). “Palestine for The Jews”. Retrieved July 29, 2009, from the Times online http://archive.timesonline.co.uk/tol/viewArticle.arc?articleId=ARCHIVE-The_Times-1917-11-09-07-010&pageId=ARCHIVE-The_Times-1917-11-09-07 . Read More